[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LOST EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN ALTERNATIVE SETTINGS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY
FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 12, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-7 Serial No. 111-5
(Committee on Education and Labor) (Committee on the Judiciary)
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
and the Committee on the Judiciary
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html and
http://www.house.gov/judiciary
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-722 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Senior Republican Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey John Kline, Minnesota
Susan A. Davis, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Tom Price, Georgia
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Rob Bishop, Utah
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
David Loebsack, Iowa Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Tom McClintock, California
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania Duncan Hunter, California
Phil Hare, Illinois David P. Roe, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Jared Polis, Colorado
Paul Tonko, New York
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Northern Mariana Islands
Dina Titus, Nevada
[Vacant]
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Sally Stroup, Republican Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTHY FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York, Chairwoman
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Ranking Minority Member
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Paul Tonko, New York California
Jared Polis, Colorado Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
George Miller, California David P. Roe, Tennessee
[Vacant] Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California DARRELL E. ISSA, California
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida STEVE KING, Iowa
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Georgia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico TED POE, Texas
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
BRAD SHERMAN, California TOM ROONEY, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
DANIEL MAFFEI, New York
[Vacant]
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JERROLD NADLER, New York TED POE, Texas
ZOE LOFGREN, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TOM ROONEY, Florida
MAXINE WATERS, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel
Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Joint hearing held on March 12, 2009............................. 1
Statement of Members:
McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Healthy
Families and Communities................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, Senior Republican Member,
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities........... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby,'' Chairman, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.................... 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Blomberg, Thomas, professor of criminology, Florida State
University................................................. 12
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Responses to questions for the record.................... 66
Brooke, Linda, director, government relations and education
service, Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Cave, Cynthia A., Ph.D., Director, Office of Student
Services, Virginia Department of Education................. 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Responses to questions for the record.................... 67
Dixon, Leonard B., Executive Director, Wayne County, MI,
Juvenile Detention Facility................................ 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Steel, Janeen, executive director, Learning Rights Law Center 37
Prepared statement of.................................... 38
Responses to questions for the record.................... 70
Additional submissions:
Table: ``Abstracts of Articles''..................... 76
``California Rules of Court and Welfare and
Institutions Code 241.1''.......................... 77
``Foster Care Education Advocacy--Crossover Youth
Project''.......................................... 81
Whitmore, Robert C., D.Ed., CEO, Manito, Inc................. 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Responses to questions for the record.................... 74
LOST EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN ALTERNATIVE SETTINGS
----------
Thursday, March 12, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
----------
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn McCarthy
[chairwoman of the Healthy Families and Communities
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on Healthy Families:
Representatives McCarthy, Clarke, Scott, Shea-Porter, Platts,
McKeon, and Guthrie.
Present from the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security: Scott, Pierluisi, Jackson Lee, Gohmert, Poe,
and Goodlatte.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Healthy Families:
Paulette Acevedo, Legislative Fellow; Tylease Alli, Hearing
Clerk; Fran-Victoria Cox, Staff Attorney; David Hartzler,
Systems Administrator; Fred Jones, Staff Assistant, Education;
Jessica Kahanek, Press Assistant; Sharon Lewis, Senior
Disability Policy Advisor; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; Lisa Pugh,
Legislative Fellow, Education; Kim Zarish-Becknell, Policy
Advisor, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities;
Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; James
Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human
Services Policy; Robert Borden, Minority General Counsel;
Kirsten Duncan, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Linda
Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General Counsel.
Staff present from the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security: Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff Member;
Jesselyn McCurdy, Counsel; Bobby Vassar, Chief Counsel; Karen
Wilkinson, (Fellow) Federal Public Defender Office Detailee;
Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Caroline Lynch, Minority
Counsel.
Chairwoman McCarthy [presiding]. A quorum is present. The
joint hearing of the House Committee on Education and Labor
Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities and the House
Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security on lost education opportunities in
alternative settings will come to order.
Before we begin, I would like to ask everybody to take a
moment to ensure that your cell phones and BlackBerries are on
silent.
Something just beeped over there.
I now recognize myself, followed by Chairman Bobby Scott of
the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security.
After Mr. Scott, the Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities ranking member, Todd Platts, from Pennsylvania,
will be recognized for an opening statement, followed by the
Congressman from Texas, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
Homeland Security and Ranking Member Gohmert. Thank you for all
being here.
I would like to thank you all for being here today. And I
thank you for traveling and spending the time with us. I think
it is very important.
The testimony that we heard, or I should say read, is very
interesting. And I was meeting with my National PTA people
upstairs before I came down here, and one of things that was on
their agenda was that a lot of young people were going into the
juvenile justice system even just for truancy. And that is
something I know that we are going to be discussing here.
Each of us sitting here knows that the importance of
education in a child's life--unfortunately there is a whole
population of students not receiving adequate education
services, and there is no or little to no accountability. This
hearing will focus on youth who in many instances need the most
help but all too often fall through the cracks. For them, the
opportunity for a decent education is lost.
The students we are talking about may be in day treatment
programs, residential treatment centers, group homes, foster
care settings, juvenile justice facilities or private
therapeutic programs. Data reflects that minority youth, low-
income youth and youth with disabilities are overrepresented in
these particular systems. Youth are commonly shuffled from one
setting to the next with education services--in each placement
locality and state.
A 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office on
residential facilities found state governments that are
responsible for the oversight of juvenile facilities often do
not monitor the quality of the education programs in these
facilities or monitor them inconsistently. The consequences for
the students include a lack of qualified teachers, shortened
school days, low quality of curriculum and overall lost
opportunities.
In fact, data shows that only 17 percent of teachers in
juvenile facilities are fully certified. We hear stories of
teenage students being given coloring sheets as their
schoolwork, teachers are not showing up to teach class, and
lockdown situations that leave children without any form of
education for days at a time.
One of our witnesses, Dr. Blomberg, will touch on the
school-to-prison pipeline where students begin in a traditional
public school and are referred to alternative placements, many
times for minor infractions, like truancy. Another witness, Ms.
Steel, will talk about growing up with undiagnosed learning
disabilities, dropping out of school and fighting her way back
to become an attorney who protects the education rights of
vulnerable, at-risk youth, including those in foster care and
those with learning disabilities. I understand Ms. Steel's
situation, as I was diagnosed with dyslexia at the age of 30.
These students then receive substandard education and
ultimately end the cycle from within a juvenile justice
facility or incarcerated. It is not realistic to expect
students receiving this type of education to graduate high
school or let alone go to college.
We know a good education is one of the most effective ways
to prevent delinquency. The overall economic costs for
individuals in the corrective system are astonishing. To
address the educational needs of students from the beginning of
a child's school career, before that child falls through the
cracks, is not only economically sound but is simply the right
thing to do. So each of our witnesses here today can speak to
successes despite the odds. Success for these vulnerable youth
is not the norm.
Thank you all for joining us and I look forward to hearing
your testimony.
I now recognize the distinguished chairman of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland
Security, who is also a member of this subcommittee, for his
opening statement.
[The statement of Mrs. McCarthy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, Chairwoman, Subcommittee
on Healthy Families and Communities
I would like to thank you for being here today. Each of us sitting
here knows the importance of education in a child's life.
Unfortunately there is a whole population of students not receiving
adequate education services, and there is little to no accountability.
This hearing will focus on youth who, in many instances, need the most
help but all too often fall through the cracks.
For them the opportunity for a decent education is lost.
The students we are talking about may be in day treatment programs,
residential treatment centers, group homes, foster care settings,
juvenile justice facilities or private therapeutic programs. Data
reflects that minority youth, low-income youth and youth with
disabilities are overrepresented in these systems.
Youth are commonly shuffled from one setting to the next, with
education services varying in each placement, locality and state.
A 2007 Report by the Government Accountability Office on
residential facilities found state governments that are responsible for
the oversight of juvenile facilities often do not monitor the quality
of the educational programs in these facilities or monitor them
inconsistently. The consequences for the students include a lack of
qualified teachers, shortened school days, low quality of curriculum
and overall lost opportunities. In fact, data shows that only seventeen
percent of teachers in juvenile facilities are fully certified.
We hear stories of teenage students being given coloring sheets as
their school work, teachers not showing up to teach class, and lock
down situations that leave children without any form of education for
days at a time.
One of our witnesses, Dr. Blomburg, will touch on the school to
prison pipeline, where students begin in a traditional public school
and are referred to alternative placements, many times for minor
infractions like truancy.
Another witness, Ms. Steele, will talk about growing up with an
undiagnosed learning disability, dropping out of school, and fighting
her way back to become an attorney who protects the educational rights
of vulnerable and at-risk youth, including those in foster care and
those with learning disabilities. I understand Ms. Steele's situation,
as I was not diagnosed with dyslexia until my thirties.
These students then receive substandard education and ultimately
end the cycle within a juvenile justice facility or incarcerated. It is
not realistic to expect students receiving this type of education to
graduate high school, let alone go to college. We know a good education
is one of the most effective ways to prevent delinquency.
The overall economic costs for individuals in the correctional
system are astounding. To address the educational needs of students
from the beginning of a child's school career before that child falls
thought the cracks is not only economically sound, but it is simply the
right thing to do.
Though each of our witnesses here today can speak to successes
despite the odds, success for these vulnerable youth is not the norm.
Thank you all for joining us on this issue. I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, and I am pleased
to join you in welcoming members, witnesses and guests to
today's joint hearing, entitled ``Lost Educational
Opportunities in Alternative Settings,'' before the Committee
on Education and Labor's Subcommittee on Healthy Families and
Communities and the Subcommittee on Judiciary--Crime, Terrorism
and Homeland Security, which I chair.
I believe this is a timely hearing on a timely subject of
ensuring that all children receive a world-class education that
will allow them to compete for jobs and prosperity in a rapidly
changing and challenging world economy. It is, I think,
interesting to note that it is an Education and Judiciary
Committee joint hearing, because, Madam Chairwoman, if we don't
get it right in your subcommittee on Healthy Families, I am
going to have to deal with it in my subcommittee on Crime.
So I am particularly pleased to welcome one of our expert
witnesses today, Dr. Cynthia Cave, who is director of the
Office of Student Services at the Virginia Department of
Education, whom I had the pleasure to work with when I was in
the General Assembly and I will be introducing her a bit later.
Today's hearing will examine the challenges associated with
educating children in an alternative setting and how to
overcome obstacles in providing quality education in these
settings. For many reasons, children in this country are
educated with public funds in settings other than traditional
public schools.
Generally, alternative settings, such as alternative
schools, juvenile detention facilities and foster care
settings, were established with the objective of addressing
children's individualized needs while educating them so that
they can eventually move back to the public school system. Not
providing an educational setting to children when they have
been suspended or expelled from their home is not only
counterproductive but morally wrong. Society pays a much higher
cost financially and otherwise if we don't provide an
educational alternative than if we do.
Given the importance of a solid education in achieving a
successful life, we must make sure that the quality of
education that young people receive in alternative settings is
sufficient for them to continue on to vocational training or
college, just as any other student. Some alternative settings
have created positive therapeutic environments for young people
that have proved to be very successful, and we need to learn
from these models.
Unfortunately, it is clear that not all children who are
educated in alternative schools are being provided with the
educational opportunities--with the good educational
opportunities that they need to become successful in life.
Families and educators alike are concerned that instead of
addressing the individualized needs of students, some
alternative schools are pushing students out of school and into
the streets and eventually into the juvenile and criminal
justice system.
The school system has become a gateway to the juvenile
justice system through disciplinary policies such as zero
tolerance that require school suspension, expulsion and arrest
for an increasing number of common student behaviors and rule
violations. The National Center for Educational Statistics
found that 31 percent of students who have been suspended three
or more times before the 10th grade drop out of school compared
to only 6 percent of those who have never been suspended.
The high and growing percentage of youth who are suspended
or expelled from school are youth of color; African American,
Latino, Asian and Native Americans are 58 percent of students
suspended or expelled from school. Indeed, many children of
color start on a trajectory of school failure, suspension,
expulsion and then to prison. They start on that trajectory at
birth.
The Sentencing Project estimates that one out of every
three black male students born today can expect to go to prison
in their lifetime if the current trends continue. This
development has led the Children's Defense Fund to conclude
that many black children are born on what they call the cradle-
to-prison pipeline. We have to change that trajectory and put
these children on a cradle-to-college or cradle-to-the-
workforce pipeline, because it is not only tragic but also much
more costly to our society in the long run if we don't.
Department of Justice and other estimates show that we
spend an average of over $23,000 per inmate per year to
incarcerate, while it only costs $8,000 a year to educate them.
The Alliance for Excellence in Education projects that if the
male graduation rate is increased by only 5 percent, the nation
would see an annual savings of almost $5 billion in reduction
in crime-related costs. A report by the American Youth Policy
Forum indicates that dropouts are three and a half times more
likely than high school graduates to be incarcerated during
their lifetime, so we know that education is key to keeping our
children away from the prison cell and getting them back on the
right track towards a college dorm room or the workforce.
An issue of quality education in an alternative setting is
especially important with the new accountability under No Child
Left Behind as well as mandates for students who are under the
Individuals with Disabilities Act. All students must have a
challenging curriculum that will prepare them to pass state
standardized tests and to graduate them from high school.
Other challenging educational settings in educating
children--another educational setting educating children is
foster care. These children have many obstacles to getting a
quality education as youth in the juvenile justice system.
Young people in foster care often experience numerous changes
in their home placements that require them to change schools
frequently. Foster care children have to adjust to new
teachers, classmates, curricula and rules in every new home
placement, and as a result, children often end up losing
academic credits, experiencing delays in student record
transfers, delayed enrollment and reporting of grades. So we
must be concerned about foster care students, regardless of
whether they are in the traditional or alternative educational
placements due to these challenges.
I look forward to listening to the testimony from today's
witnesses and hearing more about how we can assist school
systems in successfully overcoming the challenges in providing
quality education to children in alternative settings and to
foster care students particularly in all settings.
And thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Good morning, I am pleased to welcome you to today's joint hearing
titled ``Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings''
before the Committee on Education and Labor's Subcommittee on Health
Families and Communities and the Committee on the Judiciary's
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Among our expert witnesses today, we are joined by Dr. Cynthia
Cave, Director of the Office of Student Services for the Virginia
Department of Education. Dr. Cave oversees alternative education for
the Department of Education in Virginia and she works closely with
Virginia's bipartisan Commission on Youth to study the quality and
areas for improvement in the education of at-risk youth. She has also
been involved in intensive dropout prevention and truancy reduction
efforts.
Today's hearing will examine the challenges associated with
educating children in alternative settings and how to overcome
obstacles in providing quality education in these settings. For many
reasons, children in this country are educated with public funds in
settings other than traditional public schools. Generally, alternative
settings such as alternative schools, juvenile detention facilities and
foster care settings were established with the objective of addressing
children's individualized needs while educating them so that they can
eventually move back to the public school system. Providing an
educational setting to children when they have been suspended or
expelled from their home schools is a better alternative than leaving
them with them out on the street. However, we must make sure that the
quality of education that young people in alternative settings is
sufficient enough for them to continue on to vocational training or
college. Some alternative schools settings have created positive
therapeutic environments for young people and we need to learn from
these model schools.
Nonetheless, it is not clear whether children who are educated in
other alternative schools are being provided the educational
opportunities and support they need to become successful in life.
Families and educators alike are concerned that instead of addressing
the individualized needs of children, these alternative schools are
pushing students out of school and into the juvenile and criminal
justice system. The school system has become a gateway into the
juvenile justice system through disciplinary policies such as ``zero
tolerance'' that require school suspension, expulsion, and arrest for
an increasing number of common student behaviors and rule violations.
The National Center for Educational Statistics found that 31% of
students who had been suspended three or more times before the tenth
grade dropped out of school compared to only 6% of students who had
never been suspended.
A growing number of the youth who are suspend or expelled are youth
of color and statistics indicate that one in every 3 Black male
children born today can expect to go to prison in their lifetime if
current trends continue. This development led the Children's Defense
Fund to conclude that many Black children are born on a ``cradle to
prison pipeline.'' We must put these children on the path to a cradle
to college pipeline, because it is tragic and much more costly to our
society in the long run, if we send these young people to prison and
not to college.
The Department of Justice estimates it spends an average of almost
$25,000 per inmate per year to incarceration offenders. However, the
Alliance for Excellent Education projects that increasing the high
school graduation rate and college attendance for male students by only
5 percent would lead to combined savings and revenue of almost $8
billion each year.
We know that education is the key to getting children on the right
path away from a prison cell and toward a college dorm room. Without an
education, statistics show that dropouts are 3\1/2\ times more likely
than high school graduates to be incarcerated in their lifetime.
The issue of quality education in alternative settings is
especially important with the new accountability under the No Child
Left Behind Act as well as mandates for student access in the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). All students must
have a challenging curriculum that will prepare them to pass state
standardized tests and in many states allow them to graduate from high
school.
Children in foster care have as many obstacles to getting a quality
education as youth in the juvenile justice system. Young people in
foster care often experience numerous changes in their home placements
that require them to changes schools frequently. Foster children have
to adjust to new teachers, classmates, curricula and rules with every
new home placement. These school disruptions often result in children
losing academic credits, repeating grades, delaying enrollment in
school and transferring of student records. I look forward to listening
to the testimony from today's witnesses and hearing more about how some
schools systems have overcome the challenges to providing education in
alternative settings.
It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed ranking member of
the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee, the Gentleman from
Pennsylvania Todd Platts.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. And I thank you, Mr. Scott.
Now I will introduce my ranking member, Mr. Platts, from
Pennsylvania, who has been a good colleague the last several
years, working very well together.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Want to
thank you very much for holding this very important hearing on
our alternative education systems and really so we can learn
from our expert witnesses on the strengths and weaknesses of
our systems throughout the country.
I am very pleased that we have been joined by our
colleagues on the Judiciary Subcommittee and Chairman Scott,
Ranking Member Gohmert, delighted to join you as well as the
other members of both subcommittees.
I am going to submit my statement for the record.
[The statement of Mr. Platts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts, Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Healthy Families and Communities
Good morning. I'd like to welcome each one of you to this joint
hearing entitled ``Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative
Settings.'' I am pleased that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security is able to join us today to
hear about the educational opportunities available for youth outside of
the traditional public school system.
The goal of most alternative settings is to provide youth who
struggle in mainstream society another opportunity to succeed
educationally. Often these settings also provide behavioral health
treatment and additional support services.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act assists states
and local governments in their efforts to reduce juvenile crime through
the funding of prevention programs, efforts to combat juvenile crime,
as well as rehabilitation and treatment programs. It is often in the
rehabilitation and treatment settings that educational services are
also provided.
The purpose of today's hearing is to better understand the types of
educational opportunities that are presented to youth who often are
referred to these alternative settings by their own school district or
by a court order. I am especially interested to learn about the
specific components that make a high quality alternative educational
setting successful.
I am glad that we are holding this hearing today and look forward
to hearing testimony from this expert panel. It is vitally important
that all of our youth receive a challenging and rewarding educational
experience regardless of the setting.
I yield back to Chairwoman McCarthy.
______
Mr. Platts. Both, Chairwoman McCarthy, you and Chairman
Scott both presented very thoughtful statements, I think
captured the importance of this issue and why we are here
today.
I am especially pleased to thank each of our witnesses.
Your expertise out on the frontlines of this issue is what this
hearing is all about because through your knowledge that you
share with us we can be better informed as policymakers and, as
Chairman Scott said, hopefully get it right on the alternative
education side so that we are not dealing with issues on his
subcommittee's side, which is the criminal side.
And we are grateful for not just your presence here today
but I know the effort that goes into being part of a hearing
and preparing your testimony. I am sure it took some great
effort and sacrifice in the past week, and we are grateful for
that effort and look forward to your testimony and your wisdom
being shared with us.
So thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Platts.
Now I am pleased to introduce Mr. Gohmert, who is also on
the House Terrorism Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security.
Welcome to the committee, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay, thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, Ranking
Member Platts, Chairman Scott. It is a pleasure to be with each
of you and have the witnesses here today. Look forward to
hearing from you.
Administering justice to juvenile offenders has largely
been the domain of states, as you know. There is no federal
juvenile justice system. In fact, when the federal government
adjudicates a juvenile as a delinquent, that individual is
housed in either private or state-run facilities because the
Bureau of Prisons does not operate residential placement
facilities for juveniles.
But when looking at the state systems, it is difficult to
make an accurate count of the number of juveniles that are
committed at any one time because juveniles transition in and
out of the system frequently. One metric is the Census of
Juveniles in Residential Placement or CJRP, which provides an
annual 1-day snapshot count of all juvenile offenders in public
or private residential facilities in the United States.
A review of recent CJRP data indicates that the number of
juveniles in state, local and private correctional facilities
has actually declined since 1999. The data shows that juvenile
offenders in custody fell about 14 percent from nearly 109,000
offenders in 1999 to almost 93,000 in 2006, the last year for
which we have such data.
Many of these juveniles are only in the correctional
facilities for short periods. According to the CJRP, a closer
look at the juveniles committed as part of a court-ordered
disposition indicated 80 percent have been in facility at least
30 days, 68 percent for less than 60 days and 57 percent for at
least 90 days. Only 12 percent of the committed offenders
remained in the placement for over a year.
Creating and maintaining educational programs for juveniles
that are often coming and going from facilities is quite
challenging of course. However, many states have made valiant
efforts to provide the best possible programming that they can.
In 2004, an article that tracked the history of juvenile
correction education programs nationwide was published in the
Journal of Correctional Education. The article found that,
``Since 1997, a number of states have taken the lead in
demonstrating the quality of their juvenile correctional
education programs by responding with education standards
movement.'' The article concluded that a number of states,
including Georgia, Alabama and Ohio, improved their programs by
aligning the juvenile correctional education programs with
their state education standards. These states should be
recognized for their efforts and other states should look to
these policies to see if it makes sense to adopt them.
However, we should remain mindful of the fact that state
and local juvenile justice facilities face systemic hurdles
that are often beyond their control. A 2004 study of the
juvenile justice system by the University of Maryland concluded
that most youths enter correctional facilities with a range of
intense educational, mental health, medical and social needs. A
large number of juveniles in corrections are marginally
literate and have experienced school failure and retention at
the public school level. And all--minors in the criminal and
juvenile justice system will face these sad realities.
Before I was elected to Congress, I served as a district
judge and as chief justice of intermediate court of appeals. I
also served on the county juvenile board. During my tenure on
the bench, I sometimes oversaw cases involving juveniles facing
charges so serious that they were prosecuted as adults. Time
and time again, you had to wonder where these kids came from
and how they got here.
Often the answer was that these kids came from broken homes
without two parents and other positive role models. I also
often discovered these kids had very poor levels of education,
and most were high school dropouts by their own choice. As a
judge, I took note for a 3-month period of exactly how many I
was sentencing, day in, day out, who had never had a
relationship with their father, and it was over 80 percent.
Educational opportunities for juveniles in alternative
settings is a small facet of a larger problem. State issues
that affect the nation include the breakdown of the family.
Another state issue affecting the nation is the failure of the
public schools. Another problem is a culture where uneducated,
illiterate, foul-talking tough guys end up being role models.
We will not find solutions in only examining the symptoms.
Again, one of the diseases may be the breakdown of the American
home and family. But hopefully states will find information we
glean from these hearings helpful and will appreciate this
inquiry, with this issue of course being reserved to the states
by the 10th Amendment. It does seem that with each decade for
the last 50 years in which the federal government has usurped
more of the state control of education, we have had greater and
greater problems in the educational prominence of our students.
So I appreciate the witnesses being here. I think it is
helpful for where we have the resources to make these inquiries
and help give states guidance.
But one final anecdotal indication: In our juvenile justice
facility, we kept getting restriction after restriction on what
we had to do to feed the juveniles in order to get the $1 of
federal subsidy. After more and more restrictions were put on,
more and more requirements, we finally had the director figure
out what it would cost, number one, to do an inquiry with our
juveniles, find out what they liked to eat better than what
they were eating, and how we could have it even more
nutritional. We provided more nutritional meal and it was meals
they chose. We gave up the dollar of federal subsidy and we
saved ourselves $2 a meal.
Thank you, I yield back.
Chairwoman McCarthy. And with that, I thank the gentleman.
I would also like to say that Mr. Buck McKeon, the ranking
member on the full committee, is here with us. I thank him. I
guess he left.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 12(a), any member may submit an
opening statement in writing at this time, which will be made
part of the permanent record. Without objection, all members
will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions
for the hearing record.
Let me just explain the lighting system. You have 5 minutes
each. You will have a green light when you start. There is a
yellow light saying that you are getting down to about 4
minutes. And obviously when your red light goes on, I am not
going to stop you in mid-sentence or mid-thought, but it would
be time to wrap up and so this way everybody can have a full
opportunity to ask their questions.
Our first witness, Dr. Thomas Blomberg is the dean and
professor of criminology in the College of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at Florida State University and the editor of
Criminology and Public Policy. Dr. Blomberg's research in
Florida and throughout the nation is internationally
recognized. He will also touch on the practices and
effectiveness of alternative education, schools for at-risk
youth and developed educational behavior qualities assurance
standards for these schools.
And welcome, Mr. Blomberg.
Our next witness is Mr. Leonard Dixon. Currently Mr. Dixon
works for the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility,
Department of Children and Family Services in Detroit as the
executive director. With more than 29 years of juvenile justice
experience, Mr. Dixon will give light to a holistic approach in
serving youth in correctional and detention facilities and is
recognized nationally and internationally on this topic.
Welcome, Mr. Dixon.
Sharing both her personal perspective and her expertise as
an attorney advocate is Ms. Janeen Steel. As a former high
school dropout with a learning disability who went down the
path of addiction and homelessness, once her learning needs
were finally diagnosed as an adult she was able to go to law
school with the intention of representing at-risk youth and
ensuring quality education. Ms. Steel founded the Learning
Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, an educational-based legal
advocacy organization, which works to prevent the systematic
placement of foster youth in restrictive and, what Steel calls,
substandard educational environments.
I now yield to Chairman Scott to introduce the next
witness, Dr. Cynthia Cave.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Cynthia Cave, director
of Student Services in the division of Special Education and
Student Services at the Virginia Department of Education. She
has been part of the Department of Education for over 11 years.
Prior to coming to the Department of Education, she was
assistant commissioner for field services for the Department of
Rehabilitative Services and deputy commissioner for
administration for the Department of Health. Before joining the
state, she worked in various positions in local government,
including executive director in intergovernmental relations for
the City of Santa Ana, California.
She has also served as the adjunct professor for the
doctoral program for the School of Education and master's
program for the department of public administration at Virginia
Commonwealth University. She holds a PhD in public
administration from Syracuse, the Maxwell School; a master's of
public administration from the University of Maine; and a
bachelor of science from the College of William and Mary. And I
am particularly pleased to see her because we did work together
when I was in the Virginia General Assembly.
So it is good to see you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Bobby.
Next I will yield to my ranking member, Congressman Platts,
to introduce our next witness, Dr. Whitmore.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy.
I am delighted to welcome Dr. Robert Whitmore here as a
witness. Dr. Whitmore has 36 years of professional experience
working with at-risk youth in a variety of community settings.
Dr. Whitmore is a cofounder and CEO of Manito, Inc., a private,
non-profit organization based in Pennsylvania. And for 30 years
he has guided Manito in the development and delivery of
comprehensive alternative education, juvenile justice and
behavior health services to children, adolescents and their
families. And I think important is he, I think will reference
in his remarks, he began his career as a juvenile probation
officer and has an important perspective that he brings to the
table today.
Manito currently provides a number of comprehensive
educational and behavior health services in 11 counties in
Pennsylvania and West Virginia and serves over 700 children on
a daily basis. I am proud to say that Manito operates eight
programs in my congressional district and does so very well.
Dr. Whitmore has focused his efforts on the development of
services to at-risk youth who have been unsuccessful in
traditional public school and community settings with an
emphasis on creating supportive services to keep children in
their families and communities.
And, Dr. Whitmore, again, thank you for being here with us
today.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Todd.
And next Congressman Gohmert to introduce the next witness,
Linda Brooke.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, and we do appreciate the witnesses.
I know some of you probably came just because of how much money
you get paid for being a witness here. [Laughter.]
But you know, I mean, you all know, there may be people
listening that don't know you don't get paid for coming. I
think it is a bipartisan shortcoming. We don't even pay airfare
to get people up here. And maybe someday we can do something on
a bipartisan basis to fix that, but it makes us all the more
grateful that anybody is willing to come up here and talk to
us.
But Linda Brooke, so glad to have her here. She is the
director of Government Relations and Education Services for the
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. The TJPC is the state
agency that establishes standards and provides funds, training
and technical assistance for the 168 juvenile probation
departments of Texas.
Ms. Brooke began her career in juvenile justice working in
Montgomery County, Texas, where she has worked as a detention
officer, probation officer and later as a supervisor in the
administrative service division. The last 16 years of her
career have been with the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission,
where she has worked as a field services resource specialist
and later as the director of Government Relations and Education
Services.
Ms. Brooke was instrumental in the development of the
juvenile justice education programs in the state and serves as
a state resource for local juvenile probation departments,
school districts, juvenile boards and the state legislature,
including coming and helping my county of Smith and probably
Judge Poe's county or counties as well.
But Ms. Brooke has a--I am sorry--she has provided numerous
trainings on juvenile justice educational issues to groups and
organizations such as the Juvenile Justice Association of
Texas, Texas Probation Association, Safe Drug and Drug-Free
Communities, Texas Juvenile Post-Legislative Conference. In
addition, she testifies frequently in front of Texas
legislative committees on juvenile justice-related matters and
frequently is consulted on drafting legislation.
She graduated from Sam Houston State University in
criminology and corrections. We are pleased to have her here.
Thank you so much.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
And before we start with our first witness, when each of
you speak, just make sure that you pull your microphone up
close to you and push the button so that we can all hear you.
Dr. Blomberg, if you would begin.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS BLOMBERG, PROFESSOR OF CRIMINOLOGY, FLORIDA
STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Blomberg. Okay, thank you very much.
I want to kind of cover--just try to summarize what I
provided in my written outline, which deals with the problem of
lost educational opportunities--what I feel are the
opportunities with these students and then the benefits.
You know, earlier it was mentioned that our public schools
are failing these students. I think that it is a little
unrealistic for us to imagine that our public schools that
serve approximately 50 million students annually, of which
roughly 14 percent or well over 6 million are diagnosed with
learning and behavior difficulties--it is sort of hard to
imagine that they could really be satisfactorily serving all of
those students. And that is where alternative education
settings come in, and that is of course what I will try to
focus on.
Now last year these alternative schools and juvenile
justice facilities--and I was very glad to hear the
acknowledgement that we don't even have good data on how many
students, for example, are in juvenile justice schools. I have
worked with that over a number of years, and that is certainly
something we need to improve. But last year, approximately one
million youth were in alternative schools or in juvenile
justice schools, and these programs are woefully inadequate.
There are differences among these schools; some are better
than others. But again, I think we have had a historical
pattern which has been that this population has generally been
viewed as disposable. That has been the history, even with the
development of the juvenile court at the turn of the 20th
century. We had rhetoric that called for education, but the
reality, as all of you know, was those teachers that found
themselves in these alternative settings tended to be those
often who couldn't make it in the public school setting. So we
have had this problem.
And so what results from all of this? Well, many of these
one million or more students fall through the cracks, and they
do become disproportionately involved in crime, in chemical
abuse or unemployment. And it is estimated that for each youth
that does fall into this pattern, that is going to cost this
country $2.2 million--$2.2 million.
But the opportunity that I have seen in my last 11 years in
Florida is primarily what I am here to tell you about. Florida
had the Bobby M. consent decree and in the early 1990s
established a very strong quality assurance and research system
for its juvenile justice schools, and I have been a part of
that for 11 years. And it has been one of the most amazing
projects that I have ever been involved with in my entire 36
academic and research career.
The children in Florida's juvenile justice schools--there
are approximately 200 schools--on any given day, 10,000 youth
are incarcerated in those schools. These kids are anywhere from
3 to 6 years behind in their age-grade placement, chronic
histories of suspension, expulsion and dropout.
Disproportionately roughly 50 percent or more are formally
designated with learning or behavior difficulties compared to
about 10 to 12 percent in Florida's public schools.
So clearly a very high-risk population to deal with, but
nonetheless, what we have done since 1998, we have developed
standards, education standards for these schools. We have gone
in annually; we have assessed those standards to make sure that
the programs are fulfilling what it is they are supposed to be
fulfilling. But it is not merely a gotcha. We also stop, take a
breath, and then meet with the teachers, meet with the
principals, meet with the custodial staff and say here are the
steps that are needed to improve these schools. So it brings in
kind of a moral authority involved in what we are doing,
because the teachers really care and many of the teachers
really thank us for what we are doing for them.
Furthermore, each year we pull all the key actors together
throughout the state of Florida, and we assess where we are in
juvenile justice--and each year we continuously raise the bar.
We require more, not less, because this population needs more,
not less.
We have two major longitudinal cohorts of 4,000 and 6,000.
Some of these kids have been out 6 years. Those kids that
academically achieve disproportionately return to school. And
if they return to school, the likelihood of rearrest drops
precipitously. This is something that works in changing the
life course of these children. This program can work.
Now, in terms of the benefits, the benefits are numerous.
Crime is estimated to cost this country $1 trillion a year--
yes, $1 trillion. That is just more money than I can imagine.
And what I have done in the handout, I have provided you some
cost estimates, if you look at the benefits, that can be
accrued with different proportions of these one million kids
changing their life course. That is also in the billions of
dollars.
But the bottom line is you can't simply mandate these three
best practices that you have all heard before: qualified
teachers, individualized curriculum and transition. These are
the three best practices areas, but again, that is something
that is going to have to be evaluated.
And I see I have already overdone my time, sorry.
[The statement of Mr. Blomberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Chairwoman McCarthy. Not bad.
Our next witness, Ms. Brooke, and thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF LINDA BROOKE, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND
EDUCATION SERVICES, TEXAS JUVENILE PROBATION COMMISSION
Ms. Brooke. Okay, okay, now I believe I am on, okay.
I am here today to talk about juvenile justice alternative
education programs in Texas. We refer to them as JJAEPs. The
Texas legislature created the concept of JJAEPs in 1995 during
an extensive rewrite of our Texas education code.
The legislative intent was for the JJAEPs to provide a
quality alternative education setting for expelled youth that
would focus on discipline, behavior management and academic
achievement. This legislation that created JJAEPs mandated a
separate educational setting to ensure a safe and protective
classroom through the removal of dangerous and disruptive
students while addressing and resolving the issue of expelling
youth receiving no educational services during the period of
expulsions.
Local juvenile boards in counties with populations over
125,000 were required to implement and operate JJAEPs. This
impacted 27 counties, encompassed 283 school districts. These
counties accounted for approximately 76 percent of the state
juvenile justice population.
Some of the requirements that these programs have to follow
include enabling students to perform at grade level. They must
operate 7 hours a day, 180 days a year. That is a regular
school year in Texas. They must focus on the core curriculum of
English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies
and finally self-discipline. They must adhere to minimum
standards set by my agency. They have to maintain instructional
staff ratios, case worker-to-student ratios and supervision
ratios.
They are required to be administered the statewide
assessment instrument that is used in all public schools in
Texas, and those scores are attributed back to their home
campuses. And the importance of attributing those scores back
to their students' home campuses was to maintain the interest
of the school districts in what is occurring in those programs
and their continued interest in the progress of their students.
They also earn credits for the work that they complete while
they are attending these programs.
These programs serve students between the ages of 10 and
21. We serve approximately 7,000 students in these programs
annually. These students are primarily classified in three
categories. They are mandatory expulsions, which are students
who are required by our Texas education code to be expelled
from public school for very serious felony-type offenses,
primarily against person and felony drug offenses and of course
weapons.
We also have discretionary expulsions, which is determined
by the local school districts according to their student codes
of conduct, and this would include things like misdemeanor drug
and alcohol offenses and terroristic threat and unfortunately
serious or persistent misconduct, which is defined by those
local school districts.
We also have a category of other students who are students
who can be ordered by the court into these programs.
The design and implementation of JJAEPs is determined
locally primarily through the development of memorandums of
understanding between the school districts and juvenile boards.
They vary in size; their capacities vary from 27 per day to 442
per day. They may be operated solely by the juvenile probation
department in collaboration with the local school district or
with a private vendor. In addition to the core curriculum that
I have spoken about, they also provide other services to
students in the program: individual counseling, substance
abuse, service learning projects, mental health evaluations.
They provide wraparound and family support services also.
We are also required to measure how these programs are
performing. We use two primary academic measures. One is,
again, the state assessment that is administered to all
students in Texas. And then the second is a pre and post-test
to see if they are showing some academic gain while they are in
the JJAEP.
Another area that we analyze is their behavioral
improvement. That is what got them into the programs was
behavior, and we certainly need to address that. We look at
programs' overall attendance, and we also look at once they
complete the program and return to the public school system,
behaviorally have their referrals for behavioral incidences
declined.
We also look at re-contact rates to the juvenile justice
system. And once they leave, we measure that for a 6-month
period after they leave the program in a year.
The Texas legislature has made bold changes to the juvenile
justice system and the Texas public education system by
assuring that no child falls out of the educational system. The
key to the successful implementation is local cooperation and a
seamless system where students are not allowed to fall between
the cracks. Ultimately, the juveniles served in these programs
benefit by being served in this unique educational setting.
My time is up, and I will stop there. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Brooke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Linda Brooke, Director, Government Relations and
Education Service, Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs
The Texas Legislature created the concept of juvenile justice
alternative education programs (JJAEP) in 1995 during an extensive re-
write of the Texas Education Code (TEC). This new educational placement
was created to serve the educational needs of juvenile offenders and
at-risk youth who are expelled from the regular classroom or the school
district disciplinary alternative education program (DAEP). The
legislative intent was for JJAEPs to provide a quality alternative
educational setting for expelled youth that would focus on discipline,
behavior management and academic achievement.
The 1995 legislation that created JJAEPs mandated a separate
educational setting to ensure safe and productive classrooms through
the removal of dangerous and/or disruptive students while addressing
and resolving the issue of expelled youth receiving no educational
services during the period of expulsion. Prior to the creation of
JJAEPs, disruptive and dangerous students either remained in the
classroom or were expelled to the street. Thus, the State of Texas had
a critical interest in ensuring safe classrooms for teachers and
students while providing educational services in an alternative setting
for expelled students.
Local juvenile boards in counties with a population over 125,000,
as determined by the 10 year census, were required by law to implement
and operate JJAEPs. The twenty-seven JJAEP counties encompass 283
school districts. These counties accounted for approximately 76% of the
State's juvenile age population. Texas has many fast growing counties
and anticipates after the 2010 Census as many as six additional
counties will be required to begin the operation of JJAEPs.
Funding
The funding mechanism for JJAEPs differs in part from the funding
mechanism in place for the public schools in Texas. JJAEPs are funded
primarily through county tax revenues that flow through school
districts and county commissioner's courts along with state
appropriations that flow through Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC). Public schools are funded
through county tax revenues, state general appropriation funds and
federal funds.
TJPC provides funding to local juvenile boards on a per diem basis
for students who are mandated by state law to be expelled and placed
into the JJAEP. The juvenile board and the school districts in a county
jointly enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the
cost of those students expelled at the discretion of the school
districts and non-expelled (court ordered) students who may attend the
JJAEP. Local school districts may provide funds and/or in-kind services
to the JJAEP as agreed upon in the MOU.
In addition to those counties mandated to operate JJAEPs, Texas has
a method by which other counties may voluntarily choose to establish a
JJAEP. These programs may be funded through a combination of TJPC
grants to local juvenile probation departments and through funding
provided by local school districts.
Statutory Requirements
Section 37. 011 of the Texas Education Code (TEC) primarily governs
the programmatic parameters of JJAEPs. The main academic and
programmatic standards that must be followed by all JJAEPs are
highlighted below.
The statutorily established academic mission of the JJAEP
is to enable students to perform at grade level pursuant to TEC Section
37.011(h);
JJAEPs are required to operate seven hours a day for 180
days a year pursuant to TEC Section 37.011(f);
JJAEPs must focus on English / language arts, mathematics,
sciences, social studies and self-discipline but are not required to
provide a course necessary to fulfill a student's high school
graduation requirements pursuant to TEC Section 37.011(d);
JJAEPs must adopt a student code of conduct pursuant to
TEC Section 37.011(c);
The juvenile board must develop a written JJAEP operating
policy and submit it to TJPC for review and comment pursuant to TEC
Section 37.011(g);
JJAEPs must adhere to the minimum standards set by TJPC
and found in Title 37, Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 348
pursuant to TEC Section 37.011(h) and Texas Human Resources Code (HRC)
Section 141.042(6). JJAEPs are required by these standards to have one
certified teacher per program and an overall instructional staff-to-
student ratio of no more than 1 to 24. Additionally, the operational
staff-to-student ratio is required to be no more than 1 to 12;
The juvenile board or the board's designee shall regularly
review a JJAEP student's academic progress. For high school students,
the review shall include the student's progress toward meeting high
school graduation requirements and shall establish a specific
graduation plan per TEC Section 37.011(d); and
All students enrolled at the JJAEP are also administered
the statewide assessment instrument and those scores are attributed
back to the student home campus as if the student were enrolled at the
home campus. This provision was put into place to ensure school
districts retained interest in their students and interest in the
quality of the program.
JJAEP Student Population
As defined, JJAEP students are not in regular classrooms, but would
otherwise be expelled to the street. Students served in JJAEPs have
been expelled from their home school campus, have been placed into the
program as a requirement of supervision by the juvenile court or have
been placed by a local agreement. These programs serve students between
the ages of 10 to 21. During the 2006-07 school year, approximately
7,000 individual students were served in these programs.
The student population served by JJAEPs fall into two basic
categories: expelled students and non-expelled students who are
referred to as other. Expelled students include those students who are
required to be expelled under Texas Education Code (TEC) Section 37.007
and those who are expelled at the discretion of local school district
policy.
A mandatory expulsion occurs when a student has been expelled
pursuant to TEC Section 37.007(a), (d), or (e). The Code mandates
school districts to expel students who engage in specific serious
criminal offenses including violent offenses against persons, felony
drug offenses and weapons offenses. To be designated as a mandatory
expulsion, offenses must occur on school property or at a school-
related function. The mandatory expulsion offenses are listed below.
Felony Drug Offenses
Weapons Offenses (includes expulsion for a non-illegal
knife)
Aggravated Assault
Aggravated Sexual Assault and Sexual Assault
Aggravated Robbery
Arson
Indecency with a Child
Retaliation Against School Employee or Volunteer*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Regardless of location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murder or Attempted Murder
Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide
Aggravated Kidnapping
A discretionary expulsion occurs when a school district chooses to
expel a student for committing an offense or engaging in behavior as
described in TEC Section 37.007(b), (c), and (f). Some discretionary
expulsions may occur in a regular classroom, on a school campus or at a
school related event while serious or persistent misbehavior may only
occur in a school district's Disciplinary Alternative Education Program
(DAEP). Unlike mandatory offenses, specific discretionary offenses are
not required to have been committed on school property or at a school-
related function.
Those offenses for which expulsion is discretionary are listed
below.
Serious or Persistent Misbehavior
Any Mandatory Offense within 300 feet of school campus
Aggravated Assault, Sexual Assault, Aggravated Robbery,
Murder or Attempted Murder occurring off campus against another student
Misdemeanor Drug and Alcohol Offenses
Assault on a teacher or employee
Felony Criminal Mischief
Deadly Conduct
Terroristic Threat
Inhalants
Title V felony offenses (Offenses Against Person) whether
they occur on or off school property
Other students include non-expelled students who are ordered to
attend the JJAEP by a juvenile court judge or who attend the JJAEP
under an agreement with the local school district as authorized by TEC
Section 37.011. Not all JJAEPs serve non-expelled students. JJAEPs that
do serve other students include provisions in the local memorandum of
understanding between the juvenile board and school district detailing
which students may be served and how the placement will be funded.
Program Design
The design and implementation of JJAEPs is determined locally
primarily through the development of a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) between the school district and juvenile board. While the
juvenile board is the entity ultimately responsible for operating the
JJAEP, most programs have various levels of school district
participation in programming.
JJAEPs are required by statute to teach the core curriculum of
English/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, as well
as self-discipline. Attending students earn academic credits for
coursework completed while attending the JJAEP. The length of time a
student is assigned to a JJAEP is determined by the school district for
expelled students and by the juvenile court for other placements. Once
a student has completed the term of expulsion or their condition of
probation, the student is transitioned back to his or her home school
district.
Programmatic Elements
This section takes a comprehensive look at the programmatic
components of the JJAEPs operating in Texas.
Capacity. JJAEPs vary in size according to the needs of the county
and populations served by the program. The capacity of JJAEPs ranged
from 27 to 442. JJAEPs must serve all juveniles expelled for a
mandatory offense. Programs at capacity cannot refuse to accept a
student expelled for a mandatory offense so most manage their
population through adjustments to student length of stay and/or by
limiting the number of discretionary and other students accepted into
the program.
Program Operator. JJAEPs may be operated solely by the local
probation department, or in collaborations with a local school
district, or a private vendor. The county juvenile board, however,
makes the official determination of how a JJAEP will be designed and
operated. This decision is based on a variety of factors, most
important of which is the memorandum of understanding with the school
districts in the county. Other factors that may influence the choice of
the program operator are available resources, programmatic components
and needs of the local community and school districts. Regardless of
who operates the program, JJAEPs must conform to all juvenile probation
and educational standards set out in Title 37 Texas Administrative Code
Chapter 348 and the Texas Education Code, Section 37.011.
Program Format. JJAEPs characterize their program format into one
of three basic categories: therapeutic, traditional school or military-
style. Therapeutic models place a heavy emphasis on counseling and
behavior management, often using on a cognitive skills curriculum.
Traditional school models are patterned after a regular, independent
school district setting. A military-component includes one or more of
the following components: drill instructors, physical training, and/or
military-style discipline, drill and regiment.
In addition to the core courses all programs provide additional
services to students which may include individual counseling, life
skill training, drug/alcohol prevention/intervention, substance abuse
counseling, group counseling, anger management programs, mental health
evaluation, service learning projects, community service, tutoring or
mentoring, parenting programs (for students' parents), physical
training or exercise program, vocational training or job preparation,
experiential training, wrap around and family support services.
Program Staffing. JJAEPs are staffed by a variety of professionals
and paraprofessionals. Programs are required to maintain on instruction
staff to student ratio of 1:16 preferred and 1:24 maximum; caseworker
ratio of 1:44 maximum and an overall supervision ratio of 1:8 preferred
and 1:12 maximum.
Program Measures and Performance
Academic Measures
The Texas Legislature requires TJPC to maintain a system of
accountability for JJAEP performance.
Two academic areas are measured and three behavioral areas are
measured.
Texas requires that all students enrolled in a JJAEP be
administered the assessment instrument utilized in all public schools,
the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). The TAKS measures
student achievement in reading in Grades 3-9; in writing at Grades 4
and 7; in English language arts in Grades 10 and 11; in mathematics in
Grades 3-11; in science in Grades 5, 8, 10 and 11; and in social
studies in Grades 8, 10 and 11. The Spanish TAKS is administered at
Grades 3 through 6. Satisfactory performance on the TAKS at Grade 11 is
a prerequisite to earning a high school diploma.
Analysis of TAKS results provides one assessment of overall JJAEP
performance. Since the TAKS is administered annually it cannot measure
student academic growth while in the JJAEP. During the 2006-07 school
year student passage rates in the areas of reading and math increased
over the previous school year, increased almost 20% in reading and by
19% in math.
The second academic measure used is the Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS) and the Iowa Test of Educational Development (ITED). ITBS
measures academic growth for students in grades three through eight
while the ITED measures growth for students in the ninth through
twelfth grades. The tests are a ``norm-referenced achievement battery''
and have been normed with various groups, including racial-ethnic
representation, public and private school students and students in
special groups.
The ITBS/ITED is administered to all students that are enrolled in
the JJAEP for a period equal to or greater than 90 school days.
Students are measured for performance levels in reading and mathematics
at entry to and exit from the program. Students perform a reading
comprehension and vocabulary evaluation which provides the program with
a reading total. The mathematics total includes computation, concepts
and problem solving. Results from the 2006-07 school year indicate that
for students enrolled 90 school days or longer at the time of their
exit from the program on average grade equivalency grow in math and
reading was demonstrated, .39 and .51 respectively.
Behavior Analysis
In addition to academic performance, JJAEPs are also assessed on
several behavioral measures. A goal of JJAEPs is to improve the
behavior of students who attend the program.
Attendance rates for students in JJAEPs are used as one measure of
program success. Maintaining high attendance rates for these programs
is difficult, the population of youth served in these programs have a
history of high absenteeism and because these are county-wide programs,
students are being brought in from across the entire county.
School Disciplinary Referrals
Another measure of the behavioral impact of the program is the
change in school disciplinary referrals for students in JJAEPs before
and after program participation was analyzed. Students may receive a
disciplinary referral at a school for a number of reasons.
A comparison of the average number of disciplinary referrals prior
to entering the JJAEP and after exit from the program conducted. The
``before'' period consisted of the two complete six-week periods prior
to program entry. The ``after'' period consisted of the two complete
six-week periods after program exit. During the 2006-07 school year,
student disciplinary referrals declined by 48.4% after returning to
their regular education program.
Re-contact Rates
The effectiveness of JJAEPs was also examined by exploring the rate
of subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system for students who
attended JJAEPs. Following their exit from the JJAEP, are students
tracked in the juvenile probation system for two time periods, six
months and one year. A re-contact is defined as any subsequent formal
referral to the juvenile probation department regardless of the offense
or disposition of the case. During 2006-07 school year, 71% of the
students who returned to their home school upon exiting the JJAEP did
not have a re-contact within 6 months of their exit, 56% did not have a
re-contact within one year.
Summary
The 75th Texas Legislature made bold changes to the juvenile
justice and to the public education system. Assuring that no child
falls out of the educational system. The key to successful
implementation is local cooperation and a seamless system where
students are not allowed to fall between the cracks. Participants must
appreciate each other's roles, set aside differences and foster
communication and cooperation. Ultimately, the juveniles in these
programs benefit by being served in this unique education setting.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Dr. Cave?
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA CAVE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF STUDENT
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Ms. Cave. Good morning, Madam Chair, and also Chairman
Scott. It is my pleasure to be here today to talk about what we
are doing in Virginia to support children in alternative
education and those that are at risk.
Beginning with the actions of the General Assembly, the
General Assembly directed the Board of Education to develop
regional alternative educational programs where two or more
school divisions can come together and have a place for their
last-chance kids to go. These are the kids that have violated
student code of conduct, have been suspended and expelled. They
have chronic disruptive behavior; they have instances of
assault, of weapons, of drug and alcohol abuse. It is their
place to go on a short-term basis to get intensive
individualized instruction and support.
The General Assembly mandated that the instructional
program within these alternative regional educational programs
had to be extremely rigorous. And so they abide by the Virginia
Board of Education's Standards of Learning, which are our
standards of what every child should know, and the children are
also tested while they are in these programs. In addition,
these alternative education programs provide career counseling,
support the kids. There is a low teacher-to-student ratio.
So that they are extremely structured, we follow up with
the board reports on their success annually. And we have found
that behavior improves, that weapons incidents and incidents of
assault go down and of violence. The testing is not where we
want it to be, but we have seen that over the period of several
years, Standards of Learning testing has increased--for them
the success rate has increased.
We also noted that in 2007-2008, 84 percent of these kids
either stayed in the alternative program and graduated or they
went back to their home schools and completed school. We do
lose some; some drop out. But we feel as though we have a good
completion rate and we continue to work.
Also in our detention programs, the state-operated programs
are run through my office. We ensure that kids in detention
still have an academic program that is rigorous and follows the
Virginia Standards of Learning, and we ensure that we have
highly qualified teachers.
Within the state of Virginia, the Department of
Correctional Education is responsible for the programs for
kids. We have nine juvenile schools. And voluntarily the
Department of Correctional Education abides by the Virginia
Board of Education's Standards of Learning. They abide by their
accreditation standards, which means they test kids and they
also have the appropriate staffing ratios and have to follow
the regs, as Ms. Brooke was discussing.
Voluntarily, they have increased their Standards of
Learning assessment success rate from 29 percent to 80 percent
this year, and that is because they have individualized
performance analysis for each one of their kids. They have
highly qualified teachers. They have school improvement
programs, and they have coaches for their kids. And they work
in cooperation with us, very close relationship.
Of course, no matter how well you have you standards, you
know that the transition from a school division to correctional
facility or detention and back again is where we lose kids. And
we found that in Virginia that we had tons of problems; we were
losing kids. School divisions didn't know they were coming.
They came back to school; they were lost.
I have the occasion to talk to kids in detention. And I
talked to one and said, ``What are you guys do when you come
back to school?'' And he said, ``I don't know. There is nothing
at school for me.'' And that is exactly the problem. There is
no safety net. These kids have been in very structured
programs. They come back, and they could be lost. There could
be no academic program planned for them.
So we got our agencies together--Department of Juvenile
Justice, Department of Correctional Education and Department of
Education, court services, and we said--and parents and
citizens and kids--and said, ``What can we do?'' And we came
up--Virginia Board of Education promulgated reenrollment
regulations because the General Assembly mandated that they
should and because we knew that this was a problem.
And their key important elements of these reenrollment
regs--primarily there has to be accountability in each agency
for getting this job done. There is a transition team at the
Department of Correctional Education. There is a point person
who is the principal. At the school division level there is a
reenrollment team appointed, responsible person, a reenrollment
coordinator. There is specified timelines for when information
must be passed between the different agencies. The academic
record of the child must be maintained at all times. Before
they return to a school division, there must be an academic
program and a plan. When they come to the reception and
diagnostic center from the school division, their record has to
come with them.
So because the board enacted these kinds of procedures, we
have seen a great increase in success rates of kids coming
back. And just one quick story, we had a 16-year-old who was in
an alternative ed situation, came to detention because of
behavioral problems. The detention center built a relationship
with the home school, got a highly qualified teacher in
chemistry to work individually with this child so they could
maintain their credits toward graduation and be successful.
And what we found was that the kid coming back to school is
not the kid that went into the detention center, into the
correctional facility. They change and often they are
successful. But if school divisions don't realize that, if they
have no information, if there is no joint communication, if
there is no relationship between these agencies, then you can't
build for the success of the child.
And I see it is time for me to stop, but this is a good
place to stop.
[The statement of Ms. Cave follows:]
Prepared Statement of Cynthia A. Cave, Ph.D., Director of the Office of
Student Services, Virginia Department of Education
For the past several years the Commonwealth of Virginia legislative
and executive branches have been working to establish a strong policy
and programmatic framework to promote increased high school graduation
rates, with an emphasis on support for students struggling academically
and those that are at risk. It is my pleasure to talk with you today
about these actions.
Alternative Education in Virginia
Over 1.2 million students are attending public schools in Virginia.
This number includes 4,002 students who attended one of the 30 regional
alternative education programs in the 2008 school year. It includes
approximately 19,000 students who receive classroom instruction while
serving detention, and students being served by local alternative
education programs being administered by school divisions (a reported
15,502 students in the 2005/06 school year). Students serving in
Juvenile Correctional Facilities and instructed by the Department of
Correctional Education (DCE) number approximately 800.
Regional alternative education programs were established by the
General Assembly through a directive to the Virginia Board of Education
(the Board) to create educational options for students who have
violated local school boards' policies, been expelled or suspended on a
long-term basis, or have returned from juvenile correctional centers.
Structured to meet individual student needs, they include an intensive
instructional program with rigorous standards for academic achievement
and student behavior, counseling, supportive social skills training,
career counseling, individual student supports from teachers, and
transition planning for regular school return. The Board reports
annually on the activities and progress of these programs. Currently
there are 29 operational programs, with 114 of 133 school divisions
participating.
Education in Virginia's detention centers is also the
responsibility of the Board of Education, administered through the
Virginia Department of Education's (the Department's) State Operated
Programs through agreements with school divisions. There are 24
educational programs staffed with highly qualified teachers who follow
the Board of Education's regulations and standards for education.
Alternative and nontraditional educational programs are also
developed and administered by school divisions for suspended or
expelled students, or for those students who are not succeeding in
regular instructional programs. A survey of school division programs
for disciplined students, conducted by the General Assembly' s
Commission on Youth in 2006, indicated that more than half of the 126
responding school divisions offered these students some educational
services.
Each local school division with a regional or local jail in its
jurisdiction is responsible for the provision of special education and
related services to all eligible students incarcerated in the jail for
more than ten days. Local school divisions are reimbursed for the
instructional costs of providing required special education and related
services to students with disabilities in regional or jails through the
Virginia Appropriation Act adopted by the General Assembly.
Students in Juvenile Correctional Centers continue their education
while incarcerated through the Department of Correctional Education,
which functions as an independent school district with a separate board
which works in cooperation with the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Department of Education. There
are nine Juvenile Schools, which voluntarily follow the Board of
Education's regulations for academic standards, accreditation, and
educational programs.
Policies, Regulations, and Laws
Re-enrollment Regulations
The transitions from a school to a detention center or juvenile
justice facility and back to a local school can result in lost academic
progress, disengagement from school, and less resilience to risk
factors. In 2006 the Board of Education enacted regulations to address
re-enrollment of students into public schools after they had been in a
detention or a juvenile justice correctional center. The General
Assembly through the Code of Virginia required that the regulations be
promulgated, with the cooperation of the Board of Correctional
Education. The purpose of the regulations are to foster coordination
and communication among court services units, school divisions,
detention centers, juvenile correctional centers, the family, and the
student in planning for the release of a student and his or her
educational needs. The regulations address consistency in curricula,
standards, and policies among the educational programs, timely transfer
of information, and individual student plans.
The regulations were developed through the work of a 16 member task
force, including parents and citizens, principals from general public,
alternative, detention, and Department of Correctional Education
schools, parole officers, a school division central office
administrator, and representatives from the Departments of Education,
Correctional Education, and Juvenile Justice. Their implementation was
supported through statewide institutes, presentations, and training for
all stakeholders and the appointment of a responsible coordinator for
each state agency. A follow-up survey conducted in 2008 to assess the
process indicates that the procedures put in place by the regulations
are being followed with no major problems.
One noted result of the regulations has been the building of a
deeper understanding of the released student by the receiving school
division, and adequate time to prepare for his or her enrollment,
educational program, and support. As one DCE principal has stated,
``the student who left the home school is often not the same person who
is returning.'' Because of enhanced communication between personnel in
juvenile detention and correctional centers and school division staff,
transitional plans for continuation of progress and success can be
made, based on student need and with the student's participation.
Standards of Learning
Within the Virginia Board of Education's Comprehensive Plan are
goals and objectives that focus on eliminating the achievement gap
between groups of students, support accountability for all schools and
school divisions, and adamantly proclaim that ``all of Virginia's
children--regardless of their personal circumstances--must have the
school environment, the resources, and the teachers to help them be
successful at school.''
The Board has set curriculum standards for what every child should
know in every grade through the adoption of rigorous Standards of
Learning for Virginia Public Schools for academic subjects. Student
achievement is measured through annual assessments based on these
standards for elementary and middle school grades and high school
courses. The assessments and the analysis of results are part of the
state's accountability system for No Child Left Behind, as well as the
Board's school accreditation standards.
Students take Standards of Learning assessments in regional
programs, in detention educational programs, and in juvenile
correctional facilities. Students who are enrolled in a school division
and placed in a local alternative education program are required to
take these tests. The alignment of what is taught in these settings
with the Standards of Learning is a priority at the state level.
For example, the Department of Correctional Education recently made
fundamental changes to their educational programs that include
instructional coaches, comprehensive school improvement plans, and
individual student academic performance analysis. The changes are
credited with bringing the average Standards of Learning scores for the
agency to close to 80 percent, from a beginning point several years ago
of 29 percent.
Another illustration of the difference that adherence to standards
makes in Virginia detention education programs involves a 16-year-old,
referred for discipline reasons from an alternative education program.
The center employed a highly qualified local chemistry teacher to work
with the student individually for several hours per week in order for
him to keep pace with his home school class and earn the credits
necessary to count towards graduation.
Standards of Accreditation
The Code of Virginia also specifies that the Board of Education
shall enact regulations for accrediting schools, which include
requirements for instructional programs, course and credit requirements
for graduation from high schools, and student outcome measures. The
Standards of Accreditation were revised through an administrative
process that was final in February of this year, and included the
following:
(1) the incorporation of a graduation and completion rate for
individual schools into Virginia's accountability system; and (2) the
requirement of an Academic and Career Plan for all students, beginning
in middle school. With the new regulations, a Graduation and Completion
index will be calculated for every school, based on the number and type
of student school completions, and will become part of the
accreditation process with a five-year phase in process. Consideration
of the Academic Career Plan was requested from Governor Timothy M.
Kaine through a letter to the Board of Education President Dr. Mark E.
Emblidge. The requirement will become effective with seventh graders in
2010-2011. Both of these provisions reflect the Board's emphasis on a
quality education for every child and youth in the state, regardless of
placement.
Studies of Alternative Education, Dropout Prevention, and Truancy
For the past three years, the General Assembly's Commission on
Youth has undertaken two major studies that impact students who have
been long term suspended or expelled, those who are risk of dropping
out, and those who consistently do not attend school. The studies have
addressed the availability of alternative education, dropout
prevention, and truancy. Undertaken with the participation of
stakeholder advisory groups, the studies have resulted in
recommendations for proposed legislation and suggested practices and
technical assistance for school divisions.
A Guide to Local Alternative Education Options for Suspended and
Expelled Students in the Commonwealth was completed by the Commission
in 2008, based on a survey of school divisions conducted with the
Virginia Department of Education. The 2009 legislative session resulted
in the passage of a bill stemming from the Commission's work, which
prohibits the suspension of students for instances of truancy only. It
has been signed by the Governor.
Best Practices and Prevention
Implementation of policies, regulations, and laws through the
provision of technical assistance to school divisions is a
responsibility of the Virginia Department of Education. Under the
leadership of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Patricia I.
Wright, the Department's goal is to strengthen school divisions by
providing technical assistance through model programs, guidelines and
strategies, and access to resources. As part of this responsibility,
the Department provides ongoing assistance in areas such as school
improvement, instruction, truancy prevention, student assistance
programs, effective schoolwide discipline, and dropout prevention.
Currently 158 schools in 36 school divisions are working directly
with the Department on a voluntary basis to implement effective
schoolwide discipline. The Department receives applications from
schools, reviews them for school readiness, and provides technical
assistance to the schools to help them in planning and implementation.
Principals of these schools have testified to their success as
measured by reduced disciplinary incidents, improved attendance, and
improved school climate.
In October, 2008, the Department, in partnership with America's
Promise, held a statewide dropout prevention summit for all sectors--
business, nonprofit, service, state and local government, and public
schools. The summit featured best practices in student and family
engagement, policy development, community and business partnerships,
and educational strategies for keeping at risk students in school.
State and national models for nontraditional programs were featured,
including those which focused on individualized assistance to students
who fall behind in school due to student code of conduct infractions,
behavioral problems, poor attendance, repeated grades, lack of academic
success, and inability to recover necessary credits for graduation. A
recurring theme was the use of indicators to capture ``signals'' that a
middle school or high school student may be at high risk of dropping
out and to intervene early with individual support.
A system of early identification and monitoring individual student
progress over time requires an information system that provides data to
track students. The Virginia Department of Education has developed the
Educational Information Management System to provide unique identifiers
to each Virginia public school student. Using this system, the
department is developing and piloting a tool with four school divisions
to identify students leaving the 8th grade who may be at risk for not
graduating. Early identification opens the door for intervention for a
student while he or she is still in the regular school classroom.
Conclusion
Thank you for this opportunity to provide information about the
Commonwealth of Virginia's educational system. Actions by the Governor,
the Virginia Board of Education, the Virginia General Assembly's
Commission on Youth, and the Virginia Department of Education have
resulted in policies and practices to promote academic excellence and
achievement through prevention, early intervention, quality
instruction, and individualized planning to address diverse learning
needs of all students.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you very much.
Dr. Whitmore?
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WHITMORE, CEO, MANITO, INC.
Mr. Whitmore. I would like to thank Chairwoman McCarthy and
ranking member, Mr. Platts, and Chairman Scott and ranking
member, Mr. Gohmert, for holding this hearing and the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I am the CEO of Manito, Inc., a private, non-profit
organization based in Pennsylvania. I began my career as a
juvenile probation officer in Pennsylvania, and I have worked
with at-risk adolescents in alternative settings for 36 years.
Thirty years ago, a colleague and I wrote a federal grant
and initiated a day treatment program for court adjudicated
youth, with the hope of keeping them in the community and in
their family settings. Today, Manito operates programs in 11
counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and on a daily basis
serve over 600 students.
Most students placed in alternative education settings are
failing in the traditional public school setting due to a
complexity of behavioral, social and mental health issues. All
the students who enter Manito alternative education centers
have violated one of the defined offenses under Pennsylvania
disruptive youth guidelines: violation of school policies, drug
possession, weapon possession, disruptive behavior or defiance,
and truancy.
The placement time is usually a short duration of 6 months
to a year. Their presenting issues are multifaceted and
complex. Many can be described as having difficult temperaments
and are slow to read nonverbal social cues in others and
struggle with interpersonal relationships. They are more
sensitive to changes in their environment, are more volatile
and are more at risk for impulsive reactions. These children
have the greatest problems adjusting to public school, and they
often become a frequent flyer in the juvenile justice system.
Specifically, they are the students who are experimenting
with drugs and alcohol; students who have poorly developed
social skills that frequently result in aggression, violence
and irresponsible decision making; students who are
experiencing mental health issues of being oppositionally
defiant, attention deficits or conduct disorders; and students
who exhibit learning disabilities and are several years behind
in grade level. They have lost all interest in attending
school, complying with school rules or performing well
academically.
Many of these are living--as students are living in
poverty, living in communities plagued with violence on the
streets, coming from families where family role models are or
have been in prison and have parents who are addicted to drugs
and alcohol. Students bring all these social and behavior
issues with them into the alternative setting in which they are
placed. These behavioral issues often act as an impediment to
the student being able or even willing to learn.
Our first priority is to address the complicated and
interwoven social and behavior issues by providing an array of
services that include social skills development, life skills
and career education, service learning projects, mental health
counseling and academic instruction. Our education programs
focus on basic reading, writing, math and credit recovery.
During my 30 years of professional experience working with
at-risk youth, I have seen an erosion of respect for other
individuals, a decline in acceptance of authority and
organizational structures, a deterioration in the social bonds
of communities and families and an increase in the severity of
personal issues and needs. I have also seen a reluctance of the
people responsible for solving these problems to develop
solutions that are focused on saving our children. We continue
to work within categorical silos that shift responsibility for
funding our education and social services between agencies.
Many times the needs of our children get ignored in this
process.
The question placed before us is are at-risk youth missing
out on educational opportunities while in foster care, juvenile
justice facilities, alternative education settings and other
environments. These students began missing out on educational
opportunities in our traditional public schools due to their
inability to deal with the issues that they experience. In
reality, the public school system alone does not have the
resources to address these issues.
Our children involved in alternative settings within the
juvenile justice and foster care systems need alternative
education environments that can provide consistency in services
and address their needs. Our financial resources and our work
efforts at the local level should be combined into one
collaborative, seamless system that can deliver services to
children.
Services can be delivered to students based on an
assessment of their risk and protective factors and
interventions provided based on the need level identified.
These integrated services should be provided as part of a
school-wide service system. By combining our resources and
focus, our children, our schools and our communities will
benefit.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Whitmore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert C. Whitmore, D.Ed., CEO, Manito, Inc.
I would like to thank Chairwoman McCarthy and Ranking Member Mr.
Platts of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and
Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Mr. Gohmert of the Crime Terrorism,
and Homeland Security Subcommittee for holding this hearing and the
opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Bob Whitmore. I am the CEO of Manito Inc, a private non-
profit organization based in Pennsylvania. I began my career as a
Juvenile Probation Officer in Pennsylvania, and I have worked with at-
risk adolescents in alternative settings for 36 years. Thirty years
ago, a colleague and I wrote a federal grant and initiated a Day
Treatment program for court adjudicated youth, and today we operate
programs in 11 counties in Pennsylvania and West Virginia and serve
over 600 students on a daily basis.
Most students placed in alternative education settings are failing
in the traditional public school setting due to a complexity of
behavioral, social and mental health issues. All of the students who
enter Manito alternative education Centers have violated one of the
defined offenses under Pennsylvania disruptive youth guidelines
(violation of school policies, drug possession, weapon possession,
disruptive behavior or defiance, truancy). The placements time is
usually a short duration of six months to a year. Their presenting
issues are multi-faceted and complex. Many can be described as having
difficult temperaments and are slow to read nonverbal social cues in
others and struggle with interpersonal relationships. They are more
sensitive to changes in their environment, are more volatile, and are
more at risk for impulsive reactions. These children have the greatest
problems adjusting to school, and they often become a frequent flyer in
the juvenile justice system.
Specifically, they are the students who are experimenting with
drugs and alcohol; students who have poorly developed social skills
that frequently result in aggression, violence, and irresponsible
decision making; students who are experiencing mental health issues of
being oppositional defiant, attention deficit, or conduct disorder; and
students who exhibit learning disabilities and are several years behind
in grade level. They have lost all interest in attending school,
complying with school rules, or performing well academically. Many of
these are living in poverty, living in communities plagued with
violence on the streets, come from families where family role models
are or have been in prison, and have parents who are addicted to drugs
and alcohol. Students bring all of these social and behavioral issues
with them into the alternative setting in which they are placed. These
behavioral issues often act as an impediment to the student being able
or willing to learn.
Our first priority is to address the complicated and interwoven
social and behavioral issues by providing an array of services that
include social skills development, life skills and career education,
service learning projects, mental health counseling, and academic
instruction. Our education programs focus on basic reading, writing,
math, and credit recovery.
Successful alternative education settings share common
characteristics.
1. Educational programs are diverse and based on student needs and
interests;
2. The program has caring and demanding staff who create a
nurturing family environment;
3. Creative instructional approaches are used that are based on
assessments of student needs and connect with all learning styles;
4. There is a small staff to student ratio;
5. There are counseling and social services available to assist
students and their families;
6. The program has clear rules that are fairly and consistently
utilized and establishes high standards for behavior, attendance and
performance.
During my more than 30 years of professional experience working
with at-risk youth I have seen an erosion of respect for other
individuals, a decline in acceptance of authority and organization
structure, a deterioration in the social bonds of communities and
families, and an increase in the severity of personal issues and needs.
I have also seen a reluctance of the people responsible for solving
these problems to develop solutions that are focused on saving our
children. We continue to work within categorical silos that shift
responsibility for funding our education and social services between
agencies. Many times the needs of our children get ignored in this
process.
The question placed before us is ``are at-risk youth missing out on
educational opportunities while in foster care, juvenile justice
facilities, alternative education settings and other environments.''
These students began missing out on educational opportunities in our
traditional public schools due to their inability to deal with the
issues these children experience. In reality the public school system
does not have the resources to address these issues. Our children
involved in alternative settings within the juvenile justice and foster
care systems need alternative education environments that can provide
consistency in services and address their needs. Our financial
resources and our work efforts should be combined into one system that
can deliver educational, behavior health, public health and social
services to children through one integrated and seamless process.
Services can be delivered to students based on an assessment of their
risk and protective factors and interventions provided based on the
need level identified. These integrated services should be provided as
part of a school wide service system. By combining our resources and
focus, our children, our schools and our communities will benefit.
Thank you.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Dr. Whitmore.
Mr. Dixon?
STATEMENT OF LEONARD DIXON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WAYNE COUNTY
JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY
Mr. Dixon. Madam Chairman, thank you for allowing me to be
here. I would like to also thank my county executive for paying
for me to come here----
[Laughter.]
Which is a major piece.
One of the things that I want to do is--you have my
record--is I have come from the bottom of the system to the
top, which means that I started as a line worker to a state
director, and I had an opportunity to see everything in between
in these, you know, 29-plus years. And I have traveled across
this country and had an opportunity to see the good, the bad
and the ugly of what goes on in our system. And I find myself
wondering how did we get here.
And the question to me is always if it was our children in
these systems, what would we do to make things better for them.
I worked in Florida, and I worked doing the Bobby M., you know,
system, doing the Bobby M. time, and it was a good experience
when someone else comes in and looked at your system. The issue
really becomes, in my mind, do we have the political will to
tackle a lot of the problems that we see with our young people
and the cost that is attributed to that.
What we do in Wayne County, I think we have one of the best
systems that I have been able to be associated with. And one of
the reasons why that is, is because we look at kids from a
holistic approach. We triage kids who come into the detention
facility. Because what we have found is that we have kids who
have mental health issues, medical issues and health issues.
And if a kid is hungry, can't see and in pain, it is going to
be very difficult to educate them.
And I think we have to look at those things that are going
on in our communities. The statistics, again, it is in the
testimony, and I won't go through that now. But our data has
been very good on kids not returning into the system or either
not moving up to the next level, because we know that the next
level is going into the adult system. And when they go into the
adult system, the question really becomes are we really
concerned about how much we spend because we know it costs much
more to house a person in the adult system after they have left
the juvenile justice system.
And so the issue is what are we doing about the prevention
measures. When kids are coming to school--we talk about zero
tolerance, and what I have found is that zero tolerance is
really, without being politically correct, a lazy person's way
of not wanting to work with kids. And we have to understand
that. We have to put a lot of effort into working with these
children. And I am concerned because of my own children and
making sure that they have a place that is safe, because what
happens with our kids and what we don't do affects everyone in
this room--from my insurance rates to our school, our taxes and
the whole nine yards. And I think we have to be concerned about
that.
The reason I am passionate about this is that I have been
able to see a lot. And one of the things that we have to do
when we are talking about--we have the funding. No one wants to
talk about funding these programs properly. And if you are
going to do it, we are going to have to have programs funded to
the point where we can look at the medical issues that are
happening with kids.
I have kids that come into my institution that can't see.
So how do we expect for them to learn if they can't see? I have
kids who come into my institutions who have--those that have
not seen a dentist in the time that they have been on this
earth.
A quick story, we had a young man to come into our
institution. He got into fights all the time. The kids used to
have names for him. When we fixed his teeth, do you know that
the kid never got into another fight after that? That is what
we are talking about here, is really looking at the kids as we
look at our own kids. And we would not look at what it was
costing first when we are looking at our kids; we would look at
what is the best system for our kids, then we would look at the
other part of it.
And I think we have it backwards. We need to look at how
are we going to spend our money, but is it good money being
spent to turn these kids around and to reduce the recidivism
rates and things that are happening, you know, in our systems.
And I think that is one of the things that we have to do.
[The statement of Mr. Dixon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leonard B. Dixon, Executive Director,
Wayne County, MI, Juvenile Detention Facility
I am Leonard B. Dixon, Past President of the National Juvenile
Detention Facility. I am also a member of the American Correctional
Association and the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administration and
the Executive Director of the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility
in Detroit, Michigan. I want to thank Chairwoman McCarthy, Chairman
Scott, and Ranking Members Representative Platts and Representative
Gohmert for inviting me here today, and thank this body for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My topic for this short
discussion are my views on--``Lost Educational Opportunities in
Alternative Settings.'' On behalf of Wayne County Executive Robert A.
Ficano I would like to thank you again for this opportunity.
At the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility, upon admission
into the facility, each juvenile is sent through a battery of tests.
These tests are uses to assess the youth's mental and physical health,
as well as other issues, like substance abuse. These assessments are
made prior to the youth seeing a jurist or a magistrate. Critical to
the successful outcome of their time in the detention facility and to
success in their home, community or alternative setting is the
identification of problems that contribute to a delinquent lifestyle.
Juveniles receive medical and substance abuse assessments within the
first 24 hours of admission and the findings of the evaluations are
placed into the juvenile's court record. Referrals for needed services
that are derived from the measurements are provided at the time of
their entry into the system. Educational assessments are made by the
charter school staff to support the development of individualized
learning plans for each child remaining in detention after the first 48
hours of their admission to the facility.
Psychosocial and preliminary plans of services needed are prepared
by social workers to support family involvement when it is the best
interest of the juvenile. Additionally the family dynamics are
evaluated to assess whether or not they are detrimental to the
juvenile's well being. These services and the swiftness in which they
are implemented are unprecedented in most of the other 3,257 short-term
secure juvenile detention and correctional facilities. In fact, they do
not provide a holistic approach of care for detained youth.
With the increase in the arrest rate for females and young juvenile
offenders, the composition of violent offenders in the juvenile system
has changed. It is critical to the juvenile's future that these and
other assessments are conducted expeditiously. The juvenile in a
detention setting is in crisis and his or her needs must be addressed
promptly, before a decision is made to return him or her to the
community. These evaluations such as the ones previously mentioned also
assist families in identifying community-based resources designed to
service the identified needs of the juvenile and oftentimes of the
family as a whole.
The Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility, (WCJDF) is a
multidisciplinary facility in that we service the needs of the whole
child. In the area of education, we have an on-site charter school that
is accredited by the State of Michigan. The school operates six and a
half hours per day, five days a week and half-day sessions on
Saturdays. All juveniles are assessed for their educational functioning
in mathematics, reading and language arts. A self-assessment of the
juvenile's learning style, interest levels, and personality
characteristics is also administered. This assessment process also
attempts to identify the special learning needs and/or services of
youth who qualify for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).
Qualified teaching staff implements all educational evaluations
that are conducted in the Blanch Kelso Bruce Academy, charter school at
the WCJDF. After school educational assistance is provided for youth
functioning below their grade levels on Monday through Thursday,
totaling eight hours per week, a general GED program is also made
available for eligible students.
The core components of the educational services that are offered
include courses in reading, mathematics, science, english, grammar and
physical education/health. The school also has an on-site library for
student use that is funded by Wayne County. Residents who reside in the
facility for periods in excess of two weeks will have progress reports
prepared and made available to parents, case workers/managers and
school officials. Report cards are also prepared and made available to
the home school of any juvenile that receives on-going educational
services for a grading period of nine weeks in the facility. The most
recent data for the school period from September 2007 to June 2008 that
of the 294 juveniles admitted 237 who were in the facility more than 30
days showed measurable improvements of 1 to 2 grade levels in the areas
of Math Computation and Application, English (Writing) and/or Reading.
After admission, any student who meets the criteria for IDEA is
assigned to a teacher consultant under the direction of the special
education director, to ensure continuity in services, between the
school at the facility and the youth's home school. The process
includes reviewing and addressing priority goals that are outlined in
an Individual Education Plan of each student. This information is then
used to provide access to appropriate educational services and/or
resources. A complaint raised in many jurisdictions is the inability of
the education program in the alternative placement (detention and
correctional facilities) to obtain prior school records for youths. All
though that is not a major problem in Wayne County, other programs
around the country often wait months to receive school information or
not receive it at all. School records are critical in assisting
teachers and program staff in their decision-making. Youth enter these
alternative placements with numerous impairments such as:
1. Cognitive impairments
2. Emotional impairments
3. Visual impairments
4. Learning disabilities such as speech and language impairments
These disabilities once identified are addressed by the
institutions and assist in their ability to treat youth in their care.
Without adequate information from local schools there is a risk of
youth in detention returning to community schools and being adequately
prepared for a successful re-entry and become involved in behaviors
that are detrimental to themselves and the community.
The staff to youth ratio in the school is threefold: first, there
is one instructor assigned to each classroom of fifteen students
(1:15). A teacher's assistant may be assigned to an individual class to
assist in the execution of instruction with individual students. In
addition, there is one juvenile detention specialist assigned to each
classroom to ensure adequate levels of safety and supervision. When
necessary, there are teacher consultants assigned to specific
classrooms at the discretion of the Curriculum Director to address the
facility's special needs children, (IDEA) who attend general education
classes.
Currently, a number of juvenile detention centers/facilities
receive semi-annual allocations/appropriation of funds from the state
that are consistent with student head count on a single day/point in
time. It is my belief that this is one cause for the loss of
educational opportunities in alternative settings. Most centers and
facilities have fixed bed capacities and the capacity is controlled
and/or regulated by a judicial system or some other regulatory body.
With one count being taken on a single day or point in time funding
usually will not be enough to support the needs of the facility because
the actual length of any stay in a facility varies.
Throughout the course of one year's funding, the actual number of
youth that are served is very easily under-represented. This level of
under-representation results in inadequate funding, especially for IDEA
eligible youth.
WCJDF also has an on-site, 24 hour, seven day a week medical
program. Juveniles are seen by a registered nurse prior to placement on
a residential pod and receive a dental screen by a licensed dentist or
a certified dental assistant within the first 24 to 48 hours after
initial admission into the facility. Youth receive a full medical
assessment (initial physical) by a licensed pediatrician during the
same time frame. All juveniles are checked for the need for mental
health services within the first 48 hours of admission or sooner if
they have a history of psychiatric placements or a history of mental
heath disease. Gynecological services are offered to all females upon
admission including pregnancy testing and prior to the dispensing of
any form of medication. Testing for sexually transmitted diseases (STD)
is provided for both male and female youth.
Social work and clinical staff conducts numerous assessments with
the juvenile and identified parent or legal guardian within the first
week of admission including a psycho-social assessment, preliminary
service plan and a level one mental health screening. From these tests,
decisions are made regarding visitation, telephone contacts,
identification and verification of parents and legal guardians. The
tests also identify the need for referrals for ancillary services. When
there are identified gaps in a juvenile's background or no identified
plan for future services or placements, the facility will conduct what
we like to call (I-Team) meeting, which is an Interdisciplinary Team
Decision-Making meeting. All disciplines within the facility meet to
present their findings on the juvenile and formulate a recommendation
that can be presented to the juvenile's court-ordered case manager or
parent/legal guardian. This all-encompassing, holistic approach to the
housing of juvenile offenders offers the youths a greater chance to
become a productive member of the society. Any alternative placements
(detention or correction facilities) should have the following:
1. an appropriate classification process
2. adequate health and mental health services
3. access to the community and legal representation
4. a variety of programs
5. adequate training program for staff
6. a clean and esthetically pleasing environment
7. adequate restraint, punishment, due process for youth and
appropriate grievance process
8. and a safe environment for youth to learn
Agencies that hold juveniles accountable for their actions and
provide programming to assist in the development of social skills
increase the likelihood of success upon their return to the community.
Youth should be required to make restitution and/or perform community
service for the damage caused by their delinquent acts such as the
Balance and Restorative Model used at the WCJDF and the Wayne County
Department of Children and Family Services Division of Juvenile
Services , which are both considered national models. This model is
used as a comprehensive approach for juvenile justice in Wayne County.
As a result, it has increased inter-agency collaboration and family
involvement and has helped to reduce the occurrences of juvenile
delinquency.
As stated previously, most facilities in the country do not address
the majority to juvenile's needs. This is due in part to inadequate
funding and properly trained juvenile justice and educational
professionals. This is evidenced by the number of juvenile systems that
are working under consent decrees, memorandums of understandings with
the courts, and other such judicial orders. Recidivism rates in Wayne
County are easy to identify based on admission data maintained at the
juvenile facility. The Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility records
show that only 30% of the youth released to the community have been
readmitted. Creating and funding resources within the communities to
service our kids after school can further reduce this number. There is
an old Chinese proverb that says, ``If you are planning for a year sow
rice, if you are planning for a decade plant trees, if you are planning
for a lifetime educate people.''
Detention services generally do not include aftercare. What I have
found in my 29 years of working with kids is that they want three
things: a safe environment, caring adults in their lives and a way of
sustaining themselves (i.e. employment). Youth with access to these
supportive resources and positive relationships are less likely to
experience school failure, substance abuse and delinquency, according
to Scales and Leffert (2004).
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice Department of
Prevention, allowing one youth to leave school for a life of crime and
or drug abuse cost society 1.7 to 2.3 million dollars annually. Based
on a study done by the California's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy
Advisor these costs are based on the following:
1. cost to government to operate the criminal justice system
(police, prosecution, courts, probation, incarceration, parole)
2. medical costs to individuals and government because of injuries
suffered due to crime
3. property stolen or damage resulting from crime
4. loss of productivity to society because of death, medical and
mental disabilities resulting from crime
5. loss of work time by victims of crime and their families
6. loss of property values in neighborhoods with high rates of
crime
7. pain and suffering of crime victims, their families, and
friends, as well as communities plagued by crime
8. loss of productive ``citizen'' when a juvenile offender is not
rehabilitated and continues to commit crimes
An example of what happens when youth have an adequate support
system is as followings:
Eva (fictitious name) was a 16-year-old teen who was admitted to
the WCJDF after being truant from her residential treatment program.
While truant she engaged in prostitution in order to survive. Eva came
from a neglectful family and was in the foster care system prior to her
life on the streets. She had a distrust of the system from which she
came, and all adults as she blamed them for her current life
circumstances. While in the detention facility, she demonstrated her
anger issues by being non-compliant about rules, and was disengaging
towards the staff.
Eva was exposed to the services at the facility at the point of
admission. This included, medical and dental care, psychosocial
assessments, mental health services, and educational testing and
tutorial support. Eva had no family support or involvement. The
``system'' (staff, social worker, teachers, community worker, etc) was
her family at this point. Eva began the process of healing, by
exploring the multiple ``losses'' she encountered over the years. She
was able, through the assistance of staff/professionals, to make the
connections between her ``truancy behavior'', (symbolic of
``searching'' behavior) and the losses in her life. She was supported,
accepted, and encouraged to focus on herself.
Eva went on to a residential treatment program in the community to
continue what she had begun within the detention facility. Today, Eva
is currently in a local college pursuing a degree in Human Services.
She has returned to where it began for her--the detention facility to
begin an internship. She hopes to be able to impact other youths long
term through working with high-risk teens. She also has a strong desire
to become involved in public policy regarding the foster care system.
Eva has taken her adversities and has proven that through guidance,
support and encouragement anything is possible. Eva's story, which is
true, is that success that will not be that burden or astronomical cost
on the system I cited earlier. Adequate resources and good educational
programs that help youth upfront save resources on the back end of the
system.
In my opinion, there is a wide variance between inner city and
suburban school districts in how they receive and utilize the role of
law enforcement in the school setting. Suburban and out-county school
districts continue to rely on programs such as DARE (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education) and GREAT Programs (Gang Resistance Education And
Training) that promote pro-social relationships in the community. In
these communities the police are viewed as resource and support staff
to the students. In the inner city safety is a critical issue for
schools. Due to the lack of resources in the communities resource
programs in schools for students are almost non-existent. In closing,
John Adams would say, ``Laws for the liberal education of youth,
especially for the lower classes of people are so extremely wise and
useful that to a humane and generous mind no expense for this purpose
will be thought extravagant.''
I thank you for your time and commitment to this effort and hope
that we all understand the success we will have as a society when we
take care the least of thee.
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Dixon.
Ms. Steel?
STATEMENT OF JANEEN STEEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEARNING RIGHTS
LAW CENTER
Ms. Steel. Thank you, Chairwoman McCarthy, Chairman Scott
and members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for this
hearing on children who are really often forgotten.
I am here as a founder of the Learning Rights Law Center
and as the executive director. And here in the audience is the
cofounder, Ines Kuperschmit.
Our sole mission is equity in education for all students,
including students that are in the foster care, juvenile
justice system and children with disabilities. We are a
community-based legal services organization, as in my
testimony, and our programs are aimed at preventing students
from crossing to foster care system into the juvenile justice
system as well as any students entering the system because of a
school failure. I am here also to tell you about myself,
because when I talk about the children we serve, we are one and
the same.
I was raised by a single mother in downtown Hollywood,
California. My middle school experience was filled with the
street, drugs and friends, because they were much more
interesting than school. By high school, education was the last
thing on my mind, because I knew I was bright but I just
couldn't do the work. I didn't go to class, and I failed. No
one ever asked why. So I quit high school and went into an
alternative setting, at that time an adult school, to finish.
I lost my 20s to addiction, homelessness because I ended up
living on friends' couches, and depression. Thankfully, I hit a
bottom and attended a community college where they diagnosed my
learning disability. My learning disability includes a reading
disorder like dyslexia, a writing disorder and ADD. After my
diagnosis, I learned about the law and my rights to get
accommodations, and I learned to use my intellect and began to
access education. After a tremendous amount of hard work, I
graduated from UCLA law school in 1999 and have dedicated my
entire life to helping others like myself and those less
fortunate.
My life is not different from many of the youth we work
with. They face far more segregation and isolation than I ever
did. If I were placed in one of today's alternative schools, I
wouldn't be here today. Our alternative schools are warehouses.
They are where society sends children that they just don't want
to educate. Warehouse is actually too neutral, too generous a
term for the criminal effect on the individual.
Foster youth are a particular vulnerable population. One
foster youth said, ``They think I am crazy. They think I have a
mental health issue. All I have is a broken heart.'' The
education and social welfare are too quick to label foster
youth as disturbed and needing isolation. Foster youth living
in group homes are systematically placed into alternative
settings without regard to their right to attend a least-
restrictive public education.
I met Mary. Mary was a youth with a learning disability who
lived in a group home, who attended a group home school that
was located at the same place she lived. She wanted to be a
singer; she wanted to be in a choir at the public school, but
she couldn't because they required her and all the other
children that lived there to attend their school, the on-ground
school. She was physically restrained over 20 times, once
because of a hairbrush. She was thrown to the floor and
restrained with a four-point restraint, meaning adults put her
on the floor and held her down. She should have never been
there. When we got involved as advocates, we got her out, and
she graduated.
It is unacceptable. The cost to you, to us, was $30,000 for
a private school paid by public funds. It is unacceptable. Mary
is not an isolated case. It may sound like it, but it is not.
Learning Rights works with hundreds of youth that are in
overly restrictive placements. We can't forget about other at-
risk youth, like Kerry, who is in my testimony. He had an IEP;
he has special education. He is actually required that he not
get--he actually was able to walk away when he got into
trouble. Instead, one time he tried to walk away and a security
guard grabbed him. He was Tased several times, arrested and
sent to an alternative school.
There should be definitely more oversight in alternative
settings, but our priority should be prevent these at all
costs, because they shouldn't be there. We shouldn't use public
money to warehouse students. And in this economy, we should
definitely think about education and not incarceration. The
cost far--it is so much different. It is $8,000 to educate, and
in California, it is upwards of $70,000 when we look at
detaining youth in the juvenile justice system.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Steel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janeen Steel, Executive Director,
Learning Rights Law Center
Committee Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairwoman McCarthy,
Subcommittee Chairman Scott and members of the sub committees: I want
to thank you for this hearing on ``Lost Educational Opportunities in
Alternative Settings.'' Students who are involved in, or are at-risk of
involvement in, the juvenile justice or foster care system are entitled
to an education that is meaningful, challenging and integrated with
youth not involved in the court system. But this is not occurring.
Today I sit in front of you as a graduate of UCLA Law School and
Executive Director of Learning Rights Law Center in Los Angeles,
California. Learning Rights Law Center's sole mission is to ensure
education equity and I have represented hundreds of youth who have been
denied the public education to which they are entitled.
When I was in middle and high school in Hollywood, California, the
street, drugs and friends were much more interesting than school. An
education was the last thing I was interested in because I could not
seem to be able to do the work. I knew I was bright, but it appeared by
brain would not work. I ultimately quit high school and went to adult
school. I was able to get meaningless credits to get my diploma. After
high school I spent years struggling with addiction, homelessness
(living with friends) and depression. It was not until I attempted
community college that my learning disability was finally diagnosed and
I realized that something wasn't wrong with me, but that I had a
learning disability. My story is not different from many of the youth
we work with; in fact, they face far more segregation and isolation
than I did. If I were placed in one of the alternative schools for my
truancy and school failures I would not be here today. I was lucky.
Alternative Education Settings
My discussions will focus on foster youth and at-risk youth who are
placed in the following alternative school settings:
1. Continuation schools for youth who are behind in credits;
2. Community day schools for youth who have disciplinary or
behavior issues that could include expulsions;
3. Independent study programs; and
4. Non-public special education schools.
The alternative school settings I described are plagued with a
variety of problems including:
1. Lack of oversight by the local school boards and state education
agencies;
2. Lack of special education services and qualified special
education teachers for youth with disabilities;
3. High turnover of teachers and absenteeism; and
4. Punitive behavior management rather than counseling and
interventions.
When we talk about students who are attending alternative school,
we need understand that the majority are students of color. In
California, 71% of student in alternative settings are students of
color and in Los Angeles these rates are higher (``Alternative
Education Options in California: A view from counties and districts,''
McLaughlin, Stanford University, March 2008).
The students who are placed in these school settings are often
involved in, or at-risk of involvement in, the juvenile justice system,
and who have not been properly serviced by the public school system. We
know that 11% of the school population is eligible for special
education, yet 35% of the youth in juvenile halls is eligible for
special education. Research states that ``as many as 70% of
incarcerated youth suffer from some sort of a disability while
approximately 90% of youth in corrections meet the diagnostic criteria
for one or more disabling mental health disorders'' (http://
www.edjj.org/Publications/NCSETIssueBrief--4.1.pdf).
Since a high percentage of youth in these settings may have
disabilities, schools should ensure that:
1. To the maximum extent appropriate, individuals with exceptional
needs, including children in public or private institutions or other
care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled. 20
U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5) (A); Cal. Educ. Code Sec. 56040.1(a).
2. Be provided with special classes, separate schooling, or other
removal of individuals with exceptional needs from the regular
educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the
disability is such that education in the regular classes with the use
of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412(5) (A); Cal. Educ. Code Sec. 56040.1(b).
When working with youth placed in any alternative setting, urgency
drives us to get them out as soon as possible. Priority one: These
``alternative'' schools are really just warehouses for youth that
society has not cared enough to invest in educating. ``Warehouse'' is
too neutral, too generous for the criminal effect on the individual
youth. We have witnessed time after time, youth taking life-changing
hits as their already challenging life is set back to impossible odds
with this much greater risk to ending up incarcerated and/or homeless.
This has grave implications for society and severe a financial impact
on our government.
Educational Equity for Foster Youth
Foster youth are a vulnerable population. Not only have their
parents abused or neglected them, they also face a system that cares
little for their educational well being. As a society we are mandated
to take care of youth who do not have families to take care of them. We
need to ensure that their experience is equal to youth who go home to a
family.
In California the law requires that all youth in foster care shall
have the following rights: ``* * * [t]o attend school and participate
in extracurricular, cultural and personal enrichment activities,
consistent with the child's age and developmental level.'' Cal. Welf. &
Inst. Sec. 16001.9(a)(13). Unfortunately this is not occurring;
instead, foster youth living in group homes are systematically placed
into alternative education settings without regard to their right to be
in the least restrictive placement in their local community school.
In 2008, an investigation was conducted about the effects of group
home placements and whether they are associated with a significantly
higher risk of delinquency as compared with community foster home
placements. The investigation found: ``The potential for problems
associated with group home placements seems to increase as ties are
severed between group home youth and other more positive role models.
Group homes often cut juveniles off from their non delinquent and pro
social peers and keep youth with others that are often delinquent and/
or have emotional and behavioral problems including conduct disorders
and ADHD'' (Osgood & Briddle, 2006, as quoted in Ryan, J. P., et al.,
``Juvenile delinquency in child welfare: Investigating group home
effects, Children and Youth Services Review'' (2008), doi:10.1016/
j.childyouth.2008.02.004).
In 2001, a study by the American Institute for Research (AIR) found
46 percent of foster youth living in group homes eligible for special
education are warehoused in non-public schools (NPS), which are special
education schools separate from the public school. This is an obvious
segregation since only 4 percent of special education students who are
not in foster care or group homes have NPS placements [see Thomas
Parrish, Education of Foster Group Home Children, Whose Responsibility
Is It? (2001)].
Another important fact is that foster youth transfer schools an
average of 9 times and the loss of credits results in frustration and
increased risk of school drop-out. The system must address this by
allowing students to receive partial credit for courses they completed
and provide transportation to continue their education in their home
school. Laws are in place to ensure this but are not enforced. Foster
youth are removed from their families because of abuse and neglect, not
because of any educational disability. Foster youth should have a
traditional education experience, not ad-hoc ``credit recovery''
programs that provide little educational benefit.
1. Mary's Story
I met Mary in 2002 when she was a 15 year-old foster youth with a
learning disability living in a group home that used to be an
orphanage. Mary wanted to be a singer and to be in the choir, but she
could not be in the school choir. She was attending a special
education, non-public school that was located on the grounds of her
group home. She attended classes with the same girls she lived with.
Mary was physically restrained over twenty times for fighting with
other residents during school. One fight was over a hair brush, and
resulted in a restraint in which she was pushed to the ground by three
adults who held her arms and legs. Mary was not allowed to attend the
local community school, because all the youth living at the group home
were required to attend the group home school. She lost one year of
dances, football games, field trips and socializing with non-disabled,
non-foster youth. After our involvement, Mary started attending a
community high school where she graduated with honors in 2005. Mary
never should have attended the segregated school.
2. Jocelyn B., Amanda B., Andrew B. and Christopher B.
In 2004 I began representing four foster youth, all siblings, who
were all illegally placed in a non-public special education school
located on the grounds of their group home. The siblings did not have a
parent to assist in their education, and they depended on the school to
appoint a surrogate to help them. The district failed to do so and as a
result each of the siblings spent years in the illegal educational
placement. Jocelyn, the poet, was the oldest. Amanda was a bright young
woman who eloquently described the loss of attending the public school
as disgraceful. The two brothers, Andrew and Christopher, had learning
disabilities which were ignored even when they were in a special
education school.
In 2004 I filed a compliance complaint with the California
Department of Education and in 2006 Learning Rights Law Center along
with others filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of the four youth
that was settled in 2008 in a confidential settlement.
When foster youth are placed in group homes with non-public schools
located on the grounds it simulates a restrictive, almost locked,
setting.
Alternative Education Settings for At-Risk Youth
Now I am going to focus on at-risk and youth in the juvenile
justice system. Each day throughout Los Angeles youth are not admitted
into their neighborhood/community public school or are told not to
return. The excuses provided to force students out of the community
schools typically include:
We do not have the services to help you;
You lost your chance to attend this school;
You have been suspended to many times;
This school is not safe for you;
You were in juvenile hall and you must attend a probation
program.
In the past year Learning Rights Law Center has worked with
numerous parents who have come into our education clinics who have been
denied enrollment in their neighborhood schools. I have also spoken
with over a hundred probation officers about education rights. Over and
over again I hear that they try, but cannot get students to attend
school. As a result of the frustration among probation officers, the
families, and youth, the student is placed in an alternative school to
expedite enrollment.
1. What are the underlying reasons we are investing in the
alternative schools rather than in the public schools?
I suggest that each of you go visit an alternative school attended
by expelled youth or in the juvenile justice system. If we are hoping
to assist students in rehabilitation and returning to the comprehensive
public school, these schools are not the answer.
a. Fear
Youth on probation face discrimination and misperception. Some
youth are placed by the juvenile court system into a group home when a
court determines that they cannot go home to their parents. The reasons
for this placement may or may not be because of their delinquency.
For example, a community program in California providing services
and small family style group homes to probation youth faced obstacles
when they tried to enroll their clients in the public school. The
enrollment process was taking up to four months. The public school was
refusing to enroll the youth and was requiring all their clients to
attend alternative or non-public special education schools. On behalf
of the community program, we filed a complaint and asked the California
Department of Education (CDE) to investigate. What they found was quite
troubling: the district had an actual written policy regarding all
youth living in group homes in their district, requiring youth with
disabilities living in group homes to attend either a non-public
special education school or a county alternative program. This
constituted a violation of the federal statutes for providing students
with disabilities an education in the least restrictive environment; as
such, the CDE ordered a change of policy.
b. Kerry's story
Kerry is an eighteen year-old young man who experienced a very
traumatic event at his community high school. At sixteen, Kerry, who
has an auditory process disorder and behavior management issues, was
attending a community school. As outlined in Kerry's IEP, he was to
walk away when he was frustrated rather than get into a fight. Also,
staff were not to put their hands on him and must let him walk away.
Kerry had suffered years of restraints and abuse. One day at school he
decided to walk off campus to remove himself from a confrontation, but
a security guard grabbed him. Kerry was tazed, handcuffed and arrested.
As a result of the incident he was placed in an ``Interim Alternative
Placement,'' even though the IEP team determined that the behavior was
a manifestation of his disability. He was still removed to a school
that did not have the services to address his learning disability and
had little supervision. Kerry was eventually moved to a group home in
another city, and while he struggled to make up the credits lost, he
did finally graduate from high school. He struggles today with self-
esteem issues and trusting people.
c. Ruth's Story
Ruth is a fifteen year-old girl with a learning disability and
severe depression, who was placed in a non-public special education
school because of her behavior issues and fighting in the community
school. Ruth wants to be able to be treated and respected for who she
is. She struggles with acceptance with her family because of her sexual
orientation and has been hospitalized for suicide on one occasion. Ruth
worked this past year and received all A's at the non public school
hoping to return to the community school. But the principal said no.
Ruth frustrated with the answer threw a book at a car and broke its
windshield. If Ruth were here she would tell you that all she wants to
do is attend a public school and be with regular kids in a regular
school.
What do you think Ruth needs? A segregated school to further
isolate her? But, that is exactly what happened? Who really failed her?
We are working with her now to get her what she is entitled.
What Can Be Done?
1. Mandate educational interventions instead of suspensions and
removals.
Education should not merely be an option for students, but rather a
fundamental right. School districts should provide mandatory, quality
educational programs in the least restrictive environment rather than
suspending or removing students for behavior that can be through an
educational intervention. The use of suspensions and removals is not an
adequate remedy to address student behavioral difficulties.
2. Implement and enforce school-wide behavior management
structures.
There must be researched based structures in schools to address
behavior and that address the individual youth. A student who is
struggling academically, socially and emotionally may display behavior
that could be addressed. Each student should have a behavior management
plan if needed to address their social and emotional needs, address
their academic needs, and assist them with actually being successful
students. There is nothing in the law that supports this. We currently
have laws that are punitive in nature, and there is no guidance for
schools to be supportive of students' needs. Currently, for students
with special needs, there are legally mandated requirements to address
behavior BUT these requirements are currently not enforced.
3. Support teachers to prevent turnover and absences to ensure
consistency in educational programs.
There must be some accountability structure in place to address the
incredible turnover and absenteeism in high poverty schools. We must
find out how to keep teachers and support them.
4. Expand school counseling and social work services in
comprehensive campuses.
Currently, school counselors are overwhelmed with their
responsibilities. The national average for high schools is 229 students
per counselor, while in the K-8 system has an alarming 882:1 ratio. We
should increase the capacity of school counselors at school sites to
not only address students' ability to function in the school setting,
but also to provide the safety net for students. Students turn to
counselors to engage in confidential conversations with them to discuss
issues that they may have no where else to turn.
Moreover, the increased presence of social workers on school
campuses can benefit students. Social workers can work on the
development of community resources to help the family. They can also
bring community resources to the schools.
5. Increase partnerships with community-based organizations.
Schools should work more closely with community-based organizations
serving youth. Structurally, states should provide more funding
opportunities for community based organizations to work with schools.
Every school should know the community-based organizations in their
community. There are resources in the community, but they're under-
utilized and they're working in silos.
6. Implement evidence-based education therapies for students with
learning disabilities.
Students with learning disabilities must be provided with research-
based services, accommodations, and technology support.
7. Assess educational services prior to transfer or removal.
There should be a written plan for every student prior to any
transfer or removal. Currently, this is not happening. We need to
strengthen the laws regarding preventive measures that need to be taken
before transfer or removal.
8. Institute performance-based educational programs with regular
evaluations and reviews.
Implement review processes for accountability to supplement current
legal standards. Evaluate what has occurred prior the placement at the
alternative school. All youth currently in alternative schools should
have their prior educational records reviewed and evaluated to
understand their individual educational needs.
9. Improve interagency communication and collaboration among
educational, delinquency, and dependency systems.
Increase partnerships with universities, which can provide
research, best practices, expertise, and data analysis support.
Coordinate with hospitals, mental health programs, and other service
agencies.
10. Embrace deliberate plans to address racial disparities.
We know that the harmful effects of school exclusion policies are
not evenly distributed among the student population; students of color
are more likely to be suspended or removed. Schools must work on
deliberate plans to go beyond data analysis of racial disparities to
take actual steps to decrease the number of minority youth at risk of
being placed in alternative educational settings.
If schools implement a school wide behavior management system and
structure that educates based on individual needs, they can likely
prevent both individual exclusion and the overrepresentation of youth
of color who are systematically diagnosed as emotionally disturbed.
Improving partnerships with organizations rooted in the communities
of youth can also help to decrease racial disparities.
Conclusion
While there certainly must be more oversight to alternative
education settings, our priority should be to prevent the placement of
students in harmful alternative school settings.
We should not use public money to warehouse foster or at-risk youth
with disabilities in non-public school settings.
In a depressed economy, we should reconsider the high costs of not
educating our youth. For example, in California, incarcerating a youth
over a one-year period costs over $70,000, as compared to $8,000 to
educate the same youth.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Chairwoman McCarthy. I want to thank everybody for their
testimony. It is amazing how from Dr. Blomberg all the way down
to Ms. Steel, we were hearing the same message, and that is
basically how do we get to these kids at an early age.
When I first started on this committee 13 years ago, we had
an attorney general come to testify in front of our committee,
the full committee. And at that time, the attorney general had
said if we invested an extra 25 cents per child, we would save
so much money because that child wouldn't go into the juvenile
justice system. I am sure the money is a little bit more today.
But it comes down to we are facing a different culture out
there. You know, the kids are watching too much T.V. They are
on the Internet too much. They are not getting out and playing
in the fresh air. And, well, let us face it, some parents don't
want their kids to go out and play because they are afraid of
what is going out on the streets.
So where are we? It does come back to me, as far as I am
concerned--pre-kindergarten, preschool and stay with it, and
hopefully one day we will see this country really invest in
education the way we see some of our other nations, mainly
because they know it is a security and economical threat if we
don't do that to this nation.
But my question will be because--and I will be honest with
you. I guess my question could be for all of you because you
are actually, you know, going through this same testimony just
about, that, you know, getting to the kids, giving them the
holistic care that they need and the services all in one place
just about.
My curiosity would be, and it was touched on a little bit,
that when the kids got back into the school, those that were
followed up with that particular guidance that they needed--
obviously if you got a 10-year-old, you have a longer period of
time to follow them; if you have got a 16 or a 17-year-old, you
don't have a longer period of time.
So I am just wondering what happens to those older
children, only because I know the way our laws are across the
nation, they hit that--across the nation--that 18 to 21-year-
old group, they usually end up in jail. And all my correctional
guards keep telling me, ``Give us teachers. Get these kids out
of here. All they need to do is to be educated. They had some
problems, but where they were was not helping them.''
So I guess my question I will go back to: How do we follow
those kids? How do we get better data so that we can show
everybody that this is going on and hopefully can make a
difference in these children's lives--a lot of kids nowadays
but hopefully the future of these children?
Dr. Cave?
Ms. Cave. Two answers to your question: One is that the
state of Virginia has been able to develop an educational
information management system because we realized if we don't
know who these kids are and we can't monitor them and keep
track of them through their school system, we don't know what
happens to them. So we actually have an identifier for every
student, and it is a testing identifier, and we are able now to
calculate a true and accurate dropout rate because we actually
know what happens to kids and we follow them.
We have just really started with this system in 2005-2006,
but we are now experimenting with flagging different
characteristics. We have a pilot program for children in the
eighth grade. And we know from research that there are early
indicators of probability of not completing school or being at
risk. We know there are behavior problems, we know that they
are attendance is--it is a dominant issue.
And we have, through our pilot program through our School
Improvement Office, indicators that we can mark--not mark, that
is not the right word--but indicators that we can track for
kids. How often do they miss school? Are their grades
declining? Do they have discipline issues? And through that we
can try to identify them in the eighth grade, intervene early
and begin to follow whether our interventions are doing any
good or not.
With the reenrollment regs, we require that the child
coming back, the youth coming back, has weekly counseling for
as long as the school division determines is necessary. And we
also require that they follow that child so that they just
don't come back and get lost.
So those are two things that are helpful, if you can
identify kids early, if you have a way--you have to have a
mechanism with data to track them.
Chairwoman McCarthy. It seems we are always coming back to
data. Kim and I love to do data. That is our big thing.
Anybody else? Dr. Blomberg?
Mr. Blomberg. Yes, I think one of the key things is to
track the youth, particularly coming out of juvenile
facilities, that return to school, stay in school and whether
or not they get a high school diploma. All the research
establishes that the receipt of a high school diploma then
disproportionately predisposes those youth to a conventional
life career.
And what is really--and I think in terms of tracking all of
these kids, generally about 90 percent of the kids coming out
are really optimum to return to school and that necessarily is
not the public school, maybe an alternative school. And we
haven't talked much about alternative schools, but they do need
to be part of your equation with lost opportunities.
The alternative schools typically around America operate--
we have got about 100 of them in Florida. They operate as an
alternative to suspension or expulsion. But also they operate
as a transition for kids coming out of institutions and perhaps
are not ready to transition right back into their public
school.
What we found in Florida--we don't have the resources for
these alternative schools. Many of these children make it in
alternative schools. They love the structure, they love the
smaller classes, and they succeed, and they don't want to go
back to the public school, but the issue is, ``Got to go back,
you have got your 65 days.''
So again I think high school diploma--return to school,
high school diploma is very important. But also getting the
schools--and this is where I come back to accountability. It is
not enough to mandate best practices; you must have
accountability. There has got to be follow up with these
programs, and quite frankly our experiences in Florida as well
as our national work with other states implementing No Child
Left Behind in juvenile justice schools has indicated they like
knowing just what you want to know.
Look, you are sitting here, you are legislators, you want
to make responsible decisions, but you don't have good data.
You can't even describe the problem very well because of these
different issues, so it is a challenge.
Chairwoman McCarthy. I agree with you on the alternative
schools because I know a couple of kids that have gone through
the system with the alternative schools, did go back into their
regular high school, and within 2 weeks they intentionally made
an infraction on their probation or whatever so they were back
in the alternative school because they like the structure. Now
I come from the old way; I don't see why all our schools don't
have that structure for everybody to be very honest with you.
Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
We have heard a lot about the need to pay for some of these
services and the challenges of coming up with the money. The
fact of the matter is we are already paying. The charts
incarceration show that at least 10 states have an African
American incarceration rate of over 4,000 per 100,000.
International average is about 100. The United States is number
one in the world at 700.
And if you look at what we are paying per child in that
excess incarceration, if you do the arithmetic, it is somewhere
in the $3,000 per child per year. And if you target that to
those that are at-risk, you could easily spend $10,000 per
child per year if you have effective intervention programs.
So I guess my first question is whether or not you have
risk assessments to really show which ones are at risk.
Anybody?
Mr. Dixon. Could you repeat that again?
Mr. Scott. Do you have risk assessments that can really
show which children are at risk?
I think Mr. Blomberg?
Mr. Blomberg. There are a lot of--as a matter of fact, we
are just in my journal, Criminology and Public Policy, we are
publishing a series of policy debates about risk assessments--a
lot of debate about risk assessments and just how accurate they
are. What we do know in criminology unequivocally is the best
predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
With the children that we are talking about in terms of
lost education opportunities, we have been doing--again, I
mentioned earlier our cohort studies. And again, most of these
children are particularly those that have--are beyond the
three--that include 4, 5 and 6 years behind their age-grade
level; their likelihood of returning to public school is just
about nil, very difficult, and so we have assessed that.
But additionally, a thing that you mentioned--
disproportionate African American involvement. Of our high
education achievers that are incarcerated where we control for
race, for example, and we look at African American youth who
have experienced above-average academic achievement while
incarcerated, compare them with white youth who have also
experienced higher academic achievement, African American youth
are almost double in the likelihood to return to school upon
release.
Now that is something that we have really been trying to
explain because it suggests to us that African American youth
have been subject to probably a lot of negative labeling in the
public school, disproportionate negative labeling we assume.
And when they get into the juvenile justice schools and
experience success, this success is pretty profound. They are
able to apparently deal with that success and were able to
deflect the negative cues a little bit better in the public
school than were their white counterparts. And that is called
labeling theory.
But this finding, we think, is very hopeful about what we
would be doing, because if you look at risk assessment, they
would say African American youth are much less likely to return
to school. But if they academically achieve, they are showing
almost double the likelihood to return to school.
Mr. Scott. Well, if you have a risk assessment to show
those that are at risk, are there things you can do to change
the trajectory that are cost-effective?
Mr. Blomberg. If I can answer that, I will say, again, as a
criminologist who has studied crime for 36 years, yes. Yes, if
you can get children to academically achieve disproportionately
that despite all the risk factors that say they are on a
trajectory, because the best thing we know in criminology is
persistence over the life course.
Small kids become adolescent delinquents and young adult
criminals, but when they experience that adolescent turning
point with academic achievement, they begin to bond with
school, with conventional society. They become less helpless
and hopeless and just like any of us, they see light.
Mr. Scott. Have you shown rigorous studies that show that
those programs work and save more money than they cost?
Mr. Blomberg. We, oh, it would be easy to show the long-
term costs. Our program is getting excellent teachers and
working. The amount of money--I heard one of my fellow
testimonies here make the comment--the amount of money is
small. Have I done the explicit study that you are asking for?
No, but it certainly could be done.
Mr. Whitmore. If I could address that question, there are a
number of programs that have initiated studies of risk factors
and protective factors. And then if you can identify the risk
factors and protective factors, that is what you focus your
interventions on.
The community is a care model out of the state of
Washington, and it is used on a national basis. It has been
adopted extensively by the state of Pennsylvania and integrated
into communities where they have built programs around those
risk and protective factors.
The Search Institute out of Minnesota has also done
extensive research over years on identifying the same 40 risk--
a different set but a same--of 40 risk and the protective
factors. And we are now working with a gentleman from North
Carolina who has done research on bringing resiliency research
and has developed a assessment tool to identify the same
factors and how do we integrate that into our intervention
programs.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Cave?
Ms. Cave. Dr. Whitmore stole my thunder a little bit,
except I wanted to say that Johns Hopkins has been studying
early indicators of dropout--dropout provisions for the city of
Philadelphia--and as early as fourth grade, you can tell that a
child is on a trajectory. If they have lost academic--if they
can't achieve academically, if they miss school, and then as
you go through the middle schools, you see that if their grades
fail that is a good predictor.
So as early as elementary school, we can start to identify
these kids, and we want to do is intervene educationally and
also we want to intervene with the individualized support. When
you look at the risk and resiliency factors, teacher engagement
is one of the highest resiliency factors that are available, so
then training our staffs to understand that they could
influence a child, that connection, that engagement.
We were able to holdout a dropout prevention summit last
October for all sectors, and we had some model programs,
speakers from model programs in the state and also in the
nation come and speak with us. And we saw that we could have
nontraditional programs--in Virginia, the Commission on Youth
has studied alternative education, the General Assembly. They
are starting to use the term nontraditional programs instead of
alternative education just to get away from the stigma of
alternative ed.
But we have some nontraditional programs in Virginia that
are focused specifically on over-age kids, that they are
together and so they get the individual assistance that they
need, and they get flexible schedules so they can work. They
can meet other family obligations and still be in school. We
have nontraditional programs for kids that have been in
trouble, and this is part of the school division, it is not
something that the state is doing.
Mr. Scott. We had others that wanted to respond, but my
time----
Chairwoman McCarthy. Go ahead.
Mr. Dixon. I think one of the issues--I know in Wayne
County one of the things when we look at, you know, the data,
when I keep talking about holistic approach, we tend not to
look at the kids who are also in special education. And that
becomes a very significant, you know, group of kids.
And what we found was that when we--said earlier--when our
teachers engage these kids along with staff, then we find out
that they become more successful. One of the problems that we
find is that these kids have not had anyone who has been able
to really sit down and engage them and look at them
differently. And when you look at it differently when you are
dealing with them, then the kids pick those kinds of things up.
You know, those are things that you can't put data on; you
can't. But they are human things that we know that affect kids
and how they respond to things. And when we do those kinds of
things, we see success.
When you look at our charts, you can see where kids who we
only have for 30 days go up--their grade levels increase, you
know, one or two grade points. That is because someone has
really taken the time--and a lot of these kids cannot function
in a large environment, and so you have to place them in
smaller environments so that they can be successful.
And we have to take--and I keep saying the political will
to say do we want to take these kids. And when you place kids
in smaller environments, yes, it is going to cost you more. We
know that. But the issue is the long-term effect of it is it
costs you less.
And so those are the kind of things that you can't put--you
know, I think one of the problems--and I will be very brief--I
think one of the problems is that we want to--data--I use data
for a lot of stuff. But I think one of the things that we have
to be concerned about, that you can't use data when you are
talking about the human factor in things sometimes, because
there is always--in my years, I have found out that the human
factor overrides a lot of the stuff that we are talking about.
We can test; we can do all those things. But we really have to
understand how do you engage these kids, and when we engage
these kids, then what I have found is that they become
successful.
Chairwoman McCarthy. We are actually going to be able to
come for another round.
Mr. Platts?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I want to echo, you know, where you started and
really it goes to Mr. Dixon, your statement of how we look at
the needs of these children if they were our own children and
how I have got a 9-year-old, a 12-year-old and, you know, what
is their need, and then how do I try to meet that need as
opposed to not what is it going to cost and, you know, I mean,
that is certainly a part of that decision-making process.
And I think it is the political will of us as a nation,
especially at the early stages and where we are failing so many
kids by the time they get to this whole, you know, system of
alternative ed is zero to five and the chairwoman mentioned,
you know, pre-K issues, head start, early head start.
There are so many data--the Ypsilanti, Michigan, study, it
shows now over 40 years. You know, if we do right in, you know,
in childcare and preschool, the savings is like 16 times back
to the taxpayers by that investment up front.
Danny Davis, my Democratic colleague from Illinois, and I
have legislation, Education Begins at Home, about how to teach,
you know, especially low-income, single teen moms how to be a
parent. And so that foundation is established early on.
And yes, it is going to cost money, and Nurse-Family
Partnership in Pennsylvania is a great example of this effort.
But the long-term return is dramatically more than what it is
going to cost, and that is the difficulty for us as a
government is willingness to make the up-front cost, knowing
that the return is going to be much greater. It may be 20 years
down the road--but it is going to be much greater.
And I think you captured that in how we approach our own
children, how we do that in a broader sense. And I hope--
actually President Obama both in his State of the Union and his
speech to Hispanic Chamber of Commerce this week talked about
Education Begins at Home. And so we are hoping that is a push
for legislation that we think will pay great dividends in the
long term.
I want to, Dr. Whitmore, in the chairwoman's first question
about tracking your students--and I think you were going to
follow up on or wanted to answer or address that. I wanted to
ask you specifically to your students at Manito, how they
typically arrive at your door and how does a student arrive in
your program, how long they typically are with you, and then
what ability do you have once they return to a home district or
out of your program to track their long-term success.
Mr. Whitmore. Students come to us on many different reasons
because we offer various options for them. The typical students
for us are just assigned there either by the juvenile court or
by the school district.
This is one of those interesting shifts that I have seen in
the systems, is that we used to take exclusively juvenile court
commitments. And when Pennsylvania initiated the Disruptive
Youth Act and schools started taking more responsibility, our
population has shifted to today maybe 3 percent of our students
are assigned to us by juvenile court; the rest are all by the
school districts.
However, 50 percent of our students are on probation. What
we do and how the students get to us and the students that we
see have remained the same. It has just been a shifting of the
cost burden to the public schools, which they are having a hard
time to endure.
Students stay with us anywhere from a minimum of 45 days
and we have had students for 5 years. The typical range is 6
months to a year. Typically, the students are expelled for a
school year because of violating one of the designated
expulsion offenses, and so they come with us for that school
year, remainder of the school year or the next school year and
then they will return to the public school. And we try to track
them as much as we can afterwards. Frankly, we don't have the
resources to spend a lot of time tracking, and also we deal
with a very mobile population. It is hard to keep track with
them.
If I could address one of Chairwoman McCarthy's comments
about the students that are older. We do run an alternative
high school for students 16 to 21 who want to drop out, are
bored with school or have dropped out and want to come back
because many of them are single parents, they are working, they
are living independently. And we have been doing that program
for a little over 10 years, and we just had our--I think it is
1,085th student who has graduated with a high school diploma.
And we recently had a young man who had dropped out of
school just simply bored, came back, received his diploma
through our program and graduated with a dual major from Drexel
University in architecture and civil engineering. So they are
students who are extremely capable; they just do not fit into
the traditional setting, and so we need to offer programs that
just address students that are bored and want an education but
not the traditional one and those that are experiencing, as Mr.
Dixon said, that holistic approach of behavior and the social
issues.
Mr. Dixon. To add to that, Dr. Kunjufu, out of Illinois,
has done an enormous amount of studies on African American
boys. And one of the issues really has to do with what we call
the fourth grade syndrome, where African American boys really
started having problems, they started acting out and they start
doing all those kinds of things. And once you go in and you
start addressing those issues when they are in the fourth
grade--because they are more active, they have more activity
going on, they actually are larger, and so the teachers have a
harder time trying to distinguish how they work with those
kids.
And I know that for a fact because if I had not read the
book--when my son was in the fourth grade in Miami, the
teachers called to say that he was acting out. I went to the
school, met with the teachers and talked to them. They were
saying, ``Well, your son, when he finishes his work, he starts
acting out in the classroom.'' My issue to them was, ``Okay, I
will deal with the acting out part, but why don't you give him
more work? Maybe he won't act out.''
And so what happens is, when we get to that fourth grade
piece, kids--nobody wants to deal with them. That is when we
talk about zero tolerance and all those kinds of things--well,
kick them out, do all of this. Well, the real problem is, is
that we need to understand that these kids are very active and
we have to look at their activities and how do--like the
chairwoman said, how often are they going outside? How often
are they engaged and not just sitting?
Like you said earlier, those are some very significant
things. They get bored. And when they get bored--we know what
kids do when they get bored.
Another quick, you know, story. We had a governor--which I
won't, you know, call names--we had a governor who was talking
about not placing kids in alternative programs--well, that is a
waste of money, you know, you lock them up and all that. It was
interesting. When I talk about political will--when his son got
in trouble, his son was going around with another kid putting
firecrackers in mailboxes. When his son got in trouble, he
actually became a proponent of alternatives, because his child
got in trouble. That is when I go back to when it is our
children, we find the political will to do what we need to do.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to a
second round, Ms. Steel, and all of you have great issues and
look forward to additional questions, thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And appreciated all the testimony. It seems like one of the
problems with the--what I was hearing is when you are putting
kids in temporary situations in school, we haven't had the
seamlessness that we should be. That seemed to be a more common
thing in what I was hearing.
And a little disclosure here, my wife taught school in an
alternative school called Pace in our own town for a number of
years, and she just loved it because she said, you know, these
are kids, the light comes on and it is so exciting. But they
were computer programs, and they all had instructors and
whatnot.
But I am wondering--I haven't heard anybody address this
but, you know, some of us were brought up with the Socratic
method, and it was good for us to have to stand up, like in a
law school, and recite--but getting that growing up. But I have
wondered, you know, when we talk about that positive reaction,
Dr. Blomberg? Okay.
It seems like they get that from computer programs, and it
seems like most kids now if they are embarrassed to say they
can't read, they like doing it at their own pace. What do you
see as the future of education in the--for computer programs
that is self-paced where they get that encouragement sometimes
vs. the Socratic?
Ms. Steel?
Ms. Steel. I am familiar with the Socratic method, so----
[Laughter.]
And so there are a couple of things. I mean, I think one of
them is that when we think of--when you are looking at
alternative schools, there are a range of them. There are----
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Ms. Steel [continuing]. Continuations, there are--we see in
accounts--I am talking about independent study. I mean, there
is a far range, which is why I am a proponent of, like, how can
we keep kids in their community schools and make sure that they
have the opportunities all the other students--and if it is
reorganizing them to look at them in small settings, granted--
--
When it comes to computers, I have just got to tell a quick
story. I read with books on tape, because when I visually read,
I only see the words in the center of the page, and I only get
what is--I call it black and white, whereas when I read with
books on tape, it is color; it is like a movie.
So technology is the gateway. It really will change
children's lives. Every kid--needs their books on tape, right?
And it may be different, but I think it is--if you can imagine,
we--this is a population we serve. So we are adamant because
what we see is pretty dire and that we have to fight to get
books on tape. I went through law school and do you know what
it is like for me to say, ``Oh, by the way, we need books--oh,
no, they have to learn to do it on their own.''
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Ms. Steel. Why do we require that? Why aren't we looking at
alternative ways of learning? Because you know what? If that
student could learn an alternative way using technology, they
may actually be able to be more successful in their lives.
Mr. Gohmert. And some things would work better----
Ms. Steel. Yes.
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. For different children.
Ms. Steel. Because they are pretty good at MySpace----
Mr. Gohmert. And I do enjoy books on tape or CD, in fact,
but my wife doesn't. And she said, ``Well, you are oral.'' I
said, ``Is that better than being anal?'' I am not sure, but
anyway--any other comments?
Yes, Dr. Blomberg?
Mr. Blomberg. One thing, and it is actually in my outline
in my testimony, but we all talk about the critical importance
of highly qualified teachers. But the reality is, is that many
of these programs, these alternative education programs that we
are talking about, have very small populations. And when we
talk about highly qualified teachers, we typically mean highly
qualified teachers teaching in their area of professional
certification. That is not possible realistically across the
nation with all the various juvenile justice schools and
alternative schools.
And I think that is where video--a national curriculum, I
think, video-assisted instruction, individualized module
instruction--the technology has so many capabilities. And then
we get some of these wonderfully accomplished teachers, these
highly qualified teachers that are very much involved in video
presentation and so on. So I think the technology is essential
if we are to move this whole area forward.
Mr. Gohmert. But then you bring up one of my pet concerns.
We had a governor who came in with the head of education in
Texas and showed some improvements in Texas. So when they came
to Washington, they decided to ram it down everybody else's
throat as well, and I had real concerns that we didn't need the
national model rammed down everybody else's throat. Connecticut
may not want to have to teach like Texas did.
And then another thing, it seems like the more federal
control you get--and I was really hoping with the Democratic
majority and a Democratic president we would get away from some
of this cram-down in education because I was not a fan and am
not a fan of No Child Left Behind because I saw us losing music
programs, art programs, physical education, seeing, you know,
everybody having to fit in this mold as it was expected, and I
hate to get away from that state control.
And, Dr. Cave, when you talk about somebody saying, ``There
is nothing in school for me,'' I am sure all of us have heard
kids say that. And you wonder, well, why have we gotten away--
we used to have automotive shop, we had construction, we had
welding, we had ag shop. And not everybody had to go to
college, but they got that positive feedback from what they
were doing.
And, you know, a welder making $80,000, you know, may seem
poor or rich depending on--but that is a good living in East
Texas, and people wouldn't have to go to college. But they are
not getting that option now as a part of their education.
So I really wish we did a better job of assessing
individually on a local basis without being crammed down from
the federal government. And you have pointed out, and I think a
number of people up here, you know, the federal government has
resources a lot of local and states don't have, but then as we
have seen in this mess with the financial sector, if you are
going to get federal money, then eventually, if you are going
to commit first, you are going to get federal dictation, and so
that gets back to my concern.
So I know this is just a short time. We have 5 minutes to
speak, and then we get 5 minutes, but it doesn't mean that if
you have other things that you think of that you don't get to
say--that those are welcome if you would submit them. And I
know Madam Chair would agree. We would welcome that being
submitted after the hearing as you think about these things,
things that get generated. And we hope that you won't come away
with a negative affirmation from your testimony here, because
it is appreciated.
Ms. Brooke. Judge, may I respond?
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, please.
Ms. Brooke. First, the programs that we have in Texas begin
at age 10. And I think it is important----
Mr. Gohmert. You are talking about the alternative program.
Ms. Brooke. JJAEPs as we refer to them.
Mr. Gohmert. Yes, right, right.
Ms. Brooke. I think it is important that people understand
when students are being expelled from public school that one of
the first things that needs to be done with these students is a
complete assessment needs to be done to see what is going on.
Why is this student acting out?
Mr. Gohmert. Going back to Mr. Dixon's point.
Ms. Brooke. Yes, but it needs to be more than an academic
assessment. It needs to be a mental health, it needs to be a
behavioral health assessment----
Mr. Gohmert. Maybe they need teeth.
Ms. Brooke. A health period assessment, that is right, so
that we can see what is going on. And once we do a complete
assessment, I think we will find out a lot of these kids aren't
learning because there are barriers for that student, and
oftentimes barriers for his entire family, and that it is
important when we do these assessments and begin working with
the students that we embrace the whole family, because what is
going on with this one student is often going on with his
peers--or his siblings, I should say--with his siblings. And it
is important that we work with the family by sometimes bringing
in very intensive work, multiple--I can't talk--MST, multiple--
golly--systemic therapy, thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Now you know how it feels----
Ms. Brooke [continuing]. Oh my gosh.
Chairwoman McCarthy [continuing]. Dyslexia.
Ms. Brooke. Well, I am from Texas and I talk really slow
but because you guys are limiting time, I get tongue-tied.
So those are very important resources that any kind of
alternative school----
Chairwoman McCarthy [continuing]. Good point.
Ms. Brooke [continuing]. Really needs to have. And that is
one of the advantages that Texas has in putting these programs
in the juvenile justice system because we can treat the whole
family. And school districts don't have the tools sometimes to
entice the family to participate as the courts may have.
You mentioned the computerized curriculums. There is a good
place for those curriculums in schools, but many of our
students learn very differently. And each child has to be
treated individually, and their education plans need to address
specific needs with those students. They come in at all
different levels, and programs have to be equipped to address
those.
And you can't expect them to sit in front of a computer 7
hours a day and be successful. Some kids can, some kids can't.
We are also looking at bringing in virtual school programs into
these alternative schools so that higher achieving students can
engage in those virtual campuses, which is also a great tool
for us, especially when we don't have the highly qualified
teachers that were being spoken to earlier.
And one final comment that I have is related to the data.
You asked about whether we were able to track these students.
And there is a point where it stops, and that is when they
become adults. Crossing systems and removing those barriers
between systems--the education folks can certainly tell you who
drops out, but getting them to match the data with the--in
Texas it would be our Department of Public Safety--to see if
there has been arrests and incarcerations, is where we are
limited. And maybe that is an area that this committee can help
take away some of the barriers so that that sharing of data and
matching of data can be done so better tracking is achievable.
Chairwoman McCarthy. First, let me say I am all for, you
know, computers, and I am all for all the high tech. I mean, if
someone had told me 10 years ago I would be a whiz at computers
and my BlackBerry and every other contraption they have got on
my body to keep in touch, I--I understand that, you know, it is
important.
What I was talking about is that too many kids are playing
games, some of them extremely violent. We know the younger that
they start playing these violent games, they think this is
real. They think they can shoot someone and it is not real;
that person is going to get up and walk away. Or they think
that, you know, they are more powerful than they are. I am just
saying we have nothing to do with that. Parents to me should be
overseeing that. But as you said, there are many of these kids
don't have--it has become the new babysitter to be very honest
with you.
Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, who is also on the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, welcome--
and a fellow Texan.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
thank you for joining with the Judiciary Committee and Chairman
Scott for what is a vital, very vital hearing. And I always
want to take an opportunity to thank you, of course, for your
leadership as it relates to sanity in gun regulation in this
country. I think it is very important.
The reason why I say that is that I was delayed because we
were in a hearing dealing with the enormity of the drug-
trafficking issues on the border and the violence with guns. So
not to say I was reminded of you, but I thank you for your
leadership on those issues. And we are finding that our
juveniles are also being exposed to proliferation of guns in
America.
But let me thank all the witnesses for their presence here
today. And I chair and have cofounded the Congressional
Children's Caucus. Over the years, we have looked at mentoring,
intervention, bullying, just a lot of issues that would
hopefully focus on making our children's lives better.
Let me say that I believe in alternative education, but I
believe in it when it is not a way station, when it is not a
place for people to, if you will, tread water and sometimes
drown.
So let me try to ask some pointed questions. And I am going
to go to Mr. Dixon first, if he would single out for me what he
thinks would be the most redeeming teaching tool that he has in
Wayne County. What have you found to be most effective in the
course of dealing with youngsters that have been steered in
your direction?
Mr. Dixon. Well, we have what we call--we have one of the
tools that we use. We call it a JIF, a juvenile--maybe I am
being dyslexic also--the juvenile----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Influence something.
Mr. Dixon [continuing]. Influence something--yes, it is
JIF.
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is all right.
Mr. Dixon. And it looks at eight categories. It looks at,
you know, the education; looks at his, you know, mental health;
looks at his home life; looks at, you know, those type of
issues. And we are able to take that and identify some specific
problems that the kid has, you know, if it is in school, if it
is health, if it is just those kind--if it is family----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you do an analysis.
Mr. Dixon. We do an analysis.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And then you can treat him--he or she----
Mr. Dixon. Right.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Individually as opposed to
like automation.
Mr. Dixon. Right, the issue is in the individual.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right.
Mr. Dixon. And my biggest issue is that we don't bring kids
to warehouse them. And when we look at kids on an individual
basis--we were talking about the computers and all those
things. All that stuff, you know, is great.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I am not going to cut you off, but I
have a lot of questions, so I want to just get--I think the
point I am getting is individual analysis. And you are
attempting to get the children out of the system, is that
correct?
Mr. Dixon. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Not to stay in the system. Do you think
your state, then--we are not here to embarrass states. I am
going to ask this question. Do you think there is enough
funding for programs like this?
Mr. Dixon. Oh, no.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, you know, someone would ask, there
is a 10th Amendment--leave what is not left to the federal
government to the states. Is this hearing vital and does the
federal government need to become a real partner in saving our
children?
Mr. Dixon. Oh, I think the federal government, the local
government--and I talked earlier about the political will. One
of the things that I am comfortable about in our community,
which is Detroit, Wayne County, is that the county executive
has said, ``Look, we have to look down the road with our
children.''
Ms. Jackson Lee. So a legislative initiative that may be
combined out of these two committees--interesting enough, I am
on the Crime Subcommittee--that can look at intervention,
stopgap measures, you think is a vital approach to take?
Mr. Dixon. Is extremely vital.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Have you seen, when you lock up a child
and in essence throw away the key, are we advancing ourselves
in any way?
Mr. Dixon. No, we are actually paying for it down the road
because the kids are going into the adult system, which is
costing us--well, let me say, I--you weren't here earlier, and
I said politically correct, a hell of a lot more. And we keep
doing the same thing and think that we are going to get, you
know, some different results. It is not working. And so if it
is not working, it is time for us to change the way we do
things.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think that is key.
Ms. Brooke, thank you for being here, and let me compliment
all of the valiant workers that you have. And just help educate
me for a moment because, you know, once you hear my question
you know the approach that I am getting ready to take, so I am
going to have to give an apology for a little chastising. But
how are you related to the Texas juvenile detention centers
across the state? How is the Probation----
Ms. Brooke. Commission----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, is this the oversight body over the
juvenile detention centers?
Ms. Brooke. We are over the county-operated juvenile
facilities but not the state facilities.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right, and you understand my angst--so
now I am finishing my question--but you understand my angst
with the state system and the incidences that we have had both
being way stations, violence, sexual predatory acts against
youngsters. Can you just, not from your firsthand knowledge--
would you just tell me that the state is working diligently to
correct all those infractions?
Ms. Brooke. I can tell you that the governor has appointed
a permanent executive director for the Texas Youth Commission,
and I believe they----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is correct, thank you.
Ms. Brooke. Sherry Townsend is the name of the executive
director that has been appointed, and she began, I believe it
was October 1st, and I can tell you she is working diligently
to make changes and reform the state school system in Texas.
Like I said, she has been there since October 1st. My agency
has had more dialogue with that agency than we have ever had in
the past.
And she has put together a plan. As you know, we are in a
legislative session now in Texas, and the legislators are
working hard themselves to make sure plans are put in place to
protect the youth and to progress their rehabilitation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, I will just finish on this note
if the rest could answer. My big issue is the mental health
component. I don't think we could invest too much money. And
that is part of education, part of crime intervention.
And so if you all will respond to the idea of
institutionalizing the mental health component as part of
analysis, as part of treatment, both in the alternative schools
and how much money we need to put in it or if there is ever
enough money to put in to ensure that we look at the mental
health of that youngster.
Dr. Blomberg?
Mr. Blomberg. No, I could not give you a dollar amount. It
is the mental health circumstances of most of these youth. We
have mentioned that 50 percent of all those that are
incarcerated--delinquent youth that are incarcerated--are
suffering from various behavioral or learning disorders
compared to roughly 10 to 12 percent in our public schools. So
it is a disproportionate percentage.
All of us know, all of you know, that these youth do face
some very severe emotional and mental health difficulties that
is related to their educational capacities. But again, the
wonderful thing about these teachers--and I have watched it in
Florida now for 11 years.
There are teachers that can--and I don't know how they do
it--but they connect with the specific needs of their students,
and they do some wonderful things despite all the different
histories that that class brings to bear. And these are
teachers that are not mental health specialists, but rather
many of them are students with disabilities specialists, and
they simply have that ability to provide individualized
instruction.
But it is a prevalent problem. It continues. Incarcerating
the mentally ill has always been an issue. And it exacerbates
problems; it doesn't cure them. But unfortunately, we don't
have any swift cures about what causes these various mental
health problems.
We do know that education achievement, despite mental
health and various other problems--when these children are
experiencing academic achievement, their lives begin to turn
around and a lot of their emotional and other difficulties
subside. That is what our longitudinal research in Florida now
over the last 11 years has demonstrated.
So I am very hopeful, but you do bring up a very real
problem, and it needs to be addressed.
Chairwoman McCarthy. The gentlewoman's time is up.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Will Mr. Dixon answer? Or I will be happy
to yield back to the chairwoman.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Well, you have actually--you are 4
minutes over.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Ms. Clarke?
Ms. Clarke. Madam Chair, I will just yield a moment so that
Mr. Dixon and I think Ms. Steel wanted to respond to that.
Mr. Dixon. Yes, Congresswoman, it does cost a lot of money
to run a mental health program. We have a mental health program
in our institution, and it is a full mental health program with
psychiatrists, psychologists, social work--I mean the entire--
and it costs us about $2 million a year to run that program.
The benefit of it is, is that we identify a lot of these issues
that these kids have so we can address them.
On the other part, one of the things that we are not
looking at, though, when kids come in is the health issue that
contributes to some of their mental health issues. And when you
find kids who have a multitude of asthma--when they come in,
you find kids who--we have kids who have degenerative heart
problems when they are coming to our institutions. That is
serious.
And we ask the question: Why can't these kids function in
the school setting? All of those things, when I talk about
holistic approach--it is the mental health, it is the medical,
it is the education. And I am telling folks that when I go into
institutions, what I find is that a lot of our institutions in
this country don't have any of those kinds of things.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Dixon.
Ms. Steel, would you quickly?
Ms. Steel. Yes, one of just the overriding thoughts--I
agree. But I don't think it should take getting to an
alternative juvenile hall setting to get these services. We
know in L.A. there is a--that looks at resiliency and risk
factors and says that we know that if we don't use the right
interventions, once they are in juvenile hall that it is going
to go the wrong way. Why are we waiting till then?
We also know that there is no--absolutely no reason those
students with learning disabilities should be in a detention
facility. There is absolutely no reason. Because if you are
providing adequate special education, guess what is included in
that? Mental health services, behavior intervention.
So those students aren't predisposed to criminal behavior.
Many times we see kids--we have the opportunity of luckily
looking through hundreds of youths' education history as part
of our advocacy, and overriding they have not been diagnosed,
they have not been served, they have not gotten the services,
and as a result--if we can look at the front end, because we
are not even--we are missing all the kids that haven't been
expelled that are kind of trapped hoping they will get served
there, and we really believe that it is just tracking them the
wrong way.
Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you, thank you for sharing that
with us.
I wanted to thank Chairman McCarthy and Chairman Scott,
Ranking Member Platts for holding this very significant
hearing. With our president's emphasis and priority on our
children's education, this is an area that deserves more
scrutiny and emphasis, that our communities can salvage the
lives of this subset of our youth.
I am particularly concerned about it because I have a
juvenile facility in my district in Brooklyn, New York, and I
am concerned about exactly what we are manufacturing in these
types of facilities. You know, the formerly incarcerated adults
experience a variety of challenges upon reentry into their
communities. Likewise, many students released from our juvenile
justice setting state difficulties when transitioning back into
their communities.
Among other issues, these youth are often shunned by their
principals, teachers and other students when transitioning back
into traditional public school settings. They are also more
likely than their classmates to have academic deficiencies,
when can further isolate them from their peers.
I have a two-part question. First, what are your school
systems doing to assist these students in their reentry back
into their communities? And second, what can Congress do to
assist our nation's school systems in addressing reentry issues
experienced by these students? And this question is directed to
Dr. Cave, Ms. Brooke and Mr. Dixon.
Ms. Cave. Congresswoman, I am happy to talk to you about
the reenrollment regulations that the Virginia Board of
Education passed at the direction of the General Assembly and
also in cooperation with the Department of Correctional
Education and the Department of Juvenile Justice.
We recognize that children coming back into the school
systems, although they may have been successful in a very
structured environment and a good alternative education
program, that when they come back there is the capacity for
them to be lost if there is no planning for them, if there is
no planning for their academic achievement, if they can't have
a continuity of instruction, if you can't come from being in
Department of Correctional Educational program and continue in
your studies with success, if you have had special education
support--you need to know what those have been. You need to
know what an individual education plan is, and the receiving
school division needs to understand that and plan for it. The
receiving school divisions need to know what that child needs,
what their progress has been, what their success has been, have
they been receiving counseling, in order that you can combine
the right professionals.
And this goes right back to what Mr. Dixon is saying. You
need a holistic approach to these kids. You have to look at
their family. You look at their social supports required. You
need to look at the counseling. You need to look at their
behavior. And at the school level, you need to pull the
specialists together who can share their expertise to look at
the whole child and say, ``When they come back, this is what we
are going to do for them. This is what they need.''
So in Virginia, the regulations that have been passed
specified time periods for notification and planning so that a
school child that has been released can be back in school in 2
days. That is the goal.
Mr. Dixon. One of the issues is actually record transfer.
How do we transfer records, you know, back to the school
districts in which that kid is coming from? Based on my
experience, I would recommend if the Congress wants to do
something, look at the OJJDP act, authorize that, because it
has a lot of good information in it.
And what I have found is creating a good case management
system so that you can track that kid--and what I mean by a
good case management system is one individual who is working
with that kid, who is brokering the services for that child.
And that means that from the time that child comes into the
system until the time they leave out that you have someone that
has identified, that is tracking that kid. It is like a
surrogate parent.
Those are the kind of things--then you don't lose--and what
is happening in our systems that nobody likes to talk about is
that there is a total disconnect, and we are losing
information. We are losing all kinds of things because there is
no line from one end of the system to the other.
And when we do case management from a structured
standpoint, then we find out that we can track kids and we know
exactly what is going on, because we are losing kids in the
community and nobody can tell you where they are. That is the
hidden secret that nobody wants to talk about. Nobody knows
where the kids are because there is not enough funding to have
a good case management system.
And then when they fall through the cracks and something
occurs, then everyone says, ``Well, we got to figure out
someone that we can blame,'' instead of trying to figure out
how do we track that kid. Just like our kids--we would track
our kids to the doctor, to the mental health professional
because we would do that. That is the same system that we need
to create in this country.
Ms. Brooke. I am going to speak to your question as it
relates to our juvenile justice alternative education programs,
which are not residential programs but they are day programs.
When a student comes into the JJAEPs and they have developed a
plan for their stay while they are in the program, they also
begin from that point developing their transition plans out so
that they can begin working with that student and his family on
what to expect when it is time for the child to depart and go
back to his regular public school setting.
About 30 days out from the time--or 30 days prior to their
leaving, they call in the school district where the student is
going back to, they call in the parents, and they meet. And
they talk about the successes that the student has had. They
talk about the supports that the student will need when he goes
back to school, and they create the transition plan. And all
the parties agree and sign off and the student goes back.
There is a probation officer typically involved, and that
probation officer--juvenile probation officers do everything.
They hold the kid's hand, they are a friend, they are a
counselor, they are an enforcer, you know, they do everything.
And so they go to the school with the student and they try to
find a mentor at the school to link the student with so that
when they go back--because it is very difficult to go back.
These are big schools; they are a number, unfortunately, again,
and they are used to the individualized attention that they are
getting in our school.
So transitioning is extremely important for them. So we try
to link them with an adult that will take the time when they
are in school and if they are having a problem that that
student can go to and say, ``Hey, I need some help,'' or just
someone to come up to the student and say, ``Are you having a
good day?'' That is very important for these kids. So that is
what we are doing to help achieve their success.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Ms. Brooke. My time is expired.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Scott, you have a question?
Mr. Scott. I would ask another question. I had asked the
question to begin with, and I think Ms. Steel didn't have an
opportunity to respond--that is are there cost-effective
initiatives. I think she has talked around that. I wanted to
know if you had had an opportunity to address that question,
whether or not if you find people, these young people, with
risk factors, whether or not there are cost-effective ways to
intervene?
Ms. Steel. There are a lot of cost-effective ways to
intervene. We are actually working with two juvenile court
systems. And we work with, you know, community-based, you know,
counselors and social workers, as well as with probation. And
we look at all of the variety of factors. We look at their
education, we look at social and emotional issues, and we come
up with a plan of action and talk to the court about how to
help them do better in school.
But it really takes a team approach and looking at
collaboration with the agencies that you are working with to
help them integrate back into a public school. Because many
times what we see is kids ending up being pushed into
alternative schools because many--hundreds of probation
officers will tell me, ``We can't get them back into their
community schools.'' And so rather than having a kid linger
around for 30 days--I don't know what is happening in other
states--then they just put them in alternative schools.
And I think we have to address sort of a plan of action. We
are looking at the holistic approach with having--to make sure
that kids are getting the services in the public school. And so
that is the way to do it.
Let us look at the public school, enforcing--getting
special ed teachers that are qualified. We talked about not
having qualified teachers. The laws are really clear. We have
to have qualified teachers. And we have to have special ed
teachers, and we have to. And that is the part to invest in--is
to make sure that all those services are being placed to
prevent those kids getting pushed into other----
Mr. Scott. A lot has been said about a holistic approach.
We are dealing with, as chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, how
to deal with youth violence and essentially two theories. One
is to wait for them to join a gang, mess up, get caught and
then get into a bidding war as to how much time they are going
to serve. Or the bill I have introduced, the Youth PROMISE Act,
which takes the holistic approach, requires a community to come
together, to have all the players come together that have
anything to do with children at risk, that would be of course
law enforcement, education, foster care, mental health, the
boys and girls clubs, faith-based community, everybody around
the table to find out first what the problem is and then what
your resources are and then what you can do about it.
What the problem is--that calculation will calculate how
much money you are spending on incarceration and preventable
welfare. Put that number in the middle of the table as you have
your discussion. That number for Los Angeles County would be
about somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion a year.
In many cities of 100,000--100 to 200,000--you will have
20, 30, 40, $50 million a year on incarceration alone. Kind of
put that number on the table so as you discuss what your
strategy is to reduce crime 50 percent, if you can save 20 or
$30 million, you ought not limit your imagination to programs
that cost $250,000. That coupled with the fact that we are
spending for targeted, at-risk children today in many
communities $10,000 a year per child in future incarceration
that you could eliminate; that seems to be consistent with what
you are saying.
That approach was used--the gentleman from Pennsylvania may
know--it was used in Pennsylvania where they did this approach
and funded about $60 million worth of programs. And within a
couple of years, they had identified over $300 million that
they had saved with those investments. So it is cost-effective,
it works, and it, you know, saves much more money than they
spend.
And we ought to be doing that before we start loading up on
more incarceration. I mean, what kind of people are we that
would not spend the $60 million but would rather spend in a few
years $300 million cleaning up the pathology and ravages of
preventable crime.
Ms. Steel. And one quick thing is what--as for us, just in
our population, we have 60 kids we worked with in preventing
foster youth from crossing from dependency into delinquency.
And we also have another program, which is a school-to-pipeline
reversal project. And just alone in those projects where we are
in the collaborative approach, we are able to identify not only
what these individuals need but the systemic issues.
And I think as you are working in a collaborative approach
is to be willing to look at those systemic issues, to be able
to identify, ``Wow, which school districts are having trouble
getting special ed teachers, and how do we look at that as a
community at large to make those changes?'' And so by working
in the collaborative, you are actually able to address much
larger-scope issues.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Mr. Platts?
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair. As we were talking
about lots of student programs, I want to reference a guest I
have here today. This is my 15th year as a mentor in what is
called the Future Leaders of York program for high school
students. And I am honored to have a junior from Northeastern
High School in my district, Michael Chocat back here,
participating in that program and an example of a positive
program where we are reaching out to students in a positive
way.
Each of you have given us great knowledge in your written
testimonies and in your statements here today. And in looking
at them, I am trying to pull out a couple things that were, you
know, highly recommended.
And Dr. Whitmore and Ms. Steel, you both touched on an
issue that I think is critically important, and that is school
counseling, counseling services as well as social services that
kind of wraparound with the student and the family.
I know, Ms. Steel, in your testimony, you talk about the
need for more school guidance counselors. And I openly tell you
that but for Mrs. Jewel, my seventh grade guidance counselor, I
don't know if I would have made it through the seventh grade at
York Suburban junior high, let alone had the chance to go on to
college and law school, actually at Pepperdine in the L.A.
area, and know personally how important school guidance
counselors are.
You tie that in to the issue of social workers. And at
home, I have seen just the great benefit of this connection of
schools and social work through a family member. A lot of my
family are in the education field. My youngest sister has a
social work background, worked in domestic relations and things
over the years and has a teaching background. And she now works
for one of my local school districts, where she is in the
school and connecting the school to all the social service
agencies in our community and dealing with, you know, students
who have a record of truancy or other delinquency issues and
working with the parents in how to connect them to both the
social agency programs and the school programs.
One of the benefits she has as being part of the school
system, she has some leverage under our law regarding truancy
that can help engage that family, the parents, to take more
responsibility and be engaged in their child's life and
schooling and opportunities. But that connection seems so
important. And how we can try to replicate that, that we have a
more seamless--and a number of you have mentioned the
importance of a seamless program of services. That word, you
know, that holistic approach, I think, is how you said it, Mr.
Dixon, is so important.
So, you know, that kind of best practices that you have
shared is very important to us, again, as policymakers, as we
look how to funnel what is always going to be limited resources
and the issues where we put those resources and how to get the
biggest return and the cost benefit, that Chairman Scott
referenced, that we can be effective in intervening
appropriately.
I do want to, on the specific issue of parental
involvement, Dr. Whitmore, you mention in your list of
successful alternative ed programs a number of issues, one of
which is the counseling and social services including with
families. And I was wondering if you could expand on what level
of parental involvement you see with your students.
Is there any mandatory parental involvement with your
students? And then, if you are able to, maybe not in an exact
statement, but the connection between greater parental
involvement and the outcomes that you are able to achieve with
the student.
Mr. Whitmore. I wish we knew how to do mandatory parental
involvement. Our families are very much involved in all of our
problems, as much as we can. They come in at intake and there
are constant communications. We hold family meetings. We try to
do parenting classes. We invite them to participate.
I have had families that are court ordered for family
therapy because we have people trained in structured family
therapy, and they still won't come. So as much as--you know, we
have a family-based mental health program that is available,
because we do offer a full-range of mental health services
also, that, you know, we can work with the student and their
family and fund it through medical assistance or fund it
through insurance companies.
So we encourage and try to do everything we can, but even
when it is forced a lot of times it doesn't even happen. But we
all know that that is the breakdown of the whole scenario of
this is what is going on with the child. And when their family
walks in the door, you can see almost whether you are going to
be successful or not going to be successful because of that
family support system.
Mr. Dixon. Let me give you a program that nobody really
ever looks at. What we have in Wayne County, we call it the
intergenerational program, where we bring in senior citizens,
ex-school teachers--seniors, and they are matched up with kids.
And one of the things that I have found is that they really
engage those seniors. It is like those grandmothers that they
never had. And they really sit down. And when we are doing our
educational pieces with them, the seniors are sitting in the
classroom and on the unit with those kids.
And I think that is a resource that we tend not to look at.
And we went to Catholic Services, and we feed them; we do all
of those things. And they are so grateful because a lot of
seniors are just sitting and not doing anything.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Dixon, you are preaching to the choir here
because the chairwoman and I are pushing reauthorization of the
national service legislation, including the foster grandparent
program, which exactly--you know, I was just at a program
probably 2 months back where we honored the seniors in our
community who are part of that foster grandparent. And the
outcomes we see from the students, you know, in their--how they
benefit and the benefit to the seniors is tremendous. So you
have got us on your side on that one.
Mr. Dixon. Okay.
Mr. Platts. We clearly--and wanted to advocate and expand
that opportunity to every community we can.
And Dr. Cave?
Ms. Cave. I want to go to the policy level, the state
policy level, and say that our governor, Timothy Kaine,
recommended to the Board of Education that they adopt in their
school accreditation criteria that every child at seventh grade
have an individual academic and career plan, every child, and
that part of that development of that plan involves the family.
And accountability is built in with signatures of the parents
and of the school officials and of the principal--so as far as
you can mandate parent participation.
This is a beginning to say, ``We are going to look at what
your child needs, and we are trying to find a plan for their
goals and their interests throughout their educational program
in school.'' And you have to come back, and you have to
reexamine it at ninth grade and then before 11th grade. And
each time, you have to have your parent there to sign.
And in our reenrollment regs, the reenrollment regs mandate
that the student be a participant and the parent be present. So
as much as you can put into your policies that--and some
accountability statement for that is expected would help some.
Mr. Platts. And I know I reference my sister's position
within the public school system. What she finds is the threat
of a fine that she is able to, under truancy laws----
Ms. Cave. Yes.
Mr. Platts [continuing]. Is what gives her some of the
leverage of ensuring a parent participates. Ultimately they
hope they then get engaged, but, you know, that leverage she
has is probably different than on the private side, you know,
in different settings.
So, Ms. Steel, did you want to respond as well?
Ms. Steel. Yes, just we also have to always keep in mind
there are children that don't have parents.
Mr. Platts. Yes.
Ms. Steel. And so we always have to think about how are we
going to engage them, make sure that who is responsible for
them--I mean, that is a whole other committee meeting of the
crisis----
Mr. Platts. Yes.
Ms. Steel [continuing]. With surrogate parents--that we
have a huge crisis and that is why a lot of foster youth are
getting--and also we have got counselors, and that will assist
in that, either having more counselors--they are the first cut.
And they are replaced with security guards and probation
officers on the general school side.
So, and I think, you know, getting more counselors there to
really look at, you know, larger issues, the same with social
workers, and looking at how you--we had social workers,
psychiatric social workers, in L.A. for a while and it was
amazing. They changed some kids' lives; they turned them
completely around. And they are the first to go; when the cuts
hit, they are the first to go. They are considered dispensable.
And I don't understand that. And so----
Mr. Platts. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman McCarthy. Thank you, and I thank certainly Bobby
Scott, who is here representing his subcommittee.
We have taken in a lot of information, and I appreciate
each and every one of you. If you notice that I am usually more
than generous with time on having answers, if we had the full
committee here, it wouldn't happen because it would take too
long. But most of us here have very inquisitive minds, and we
have a lot of questions that we do like to ask.
I think what I will take away from, you know, this hearing
is that, you know, I have lived in Mineola--I have lived in my
own home for 62 years or so, and so my community still has a
small school from the grade school. It still has a small middle
school, and it has a small high school. And I have to tell you,
the teachers know every single kid.
And as you were saying earlier, though, you know, we see
our states coming under budget crunches. What are the first
things to go? Basically all the youth services programs, all
the programs for our young people that need mental health help,
and it just goes on and on and on, and it is a shame because it
goes from the youngest to the oldest.
But with that being said, I am hoping that we will be able
to work on legislation to make certainly better choices and to
help every child. Most of us here are great believers that you
can change a child's life, given the right services and given
the right opportunities, but there are also many of us here
that feel very strongly if we get that child early enough and
work with the parents we wouldn't be dealing with some of the
issues that we are dealing with.
So with that, as previously ordered, members will have 14
days to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any
member who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to
the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within
the requested time.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned, thank you.
[Questions for the record and their responses follow:]
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Dr. Thomas Blomberg, Professor of Criminology,
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Dear Dr. Blomberg: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Mr. Blomberg's Responses to Questions for the Record
Here are my answers to your two questions:
What kind of data is needed to best address the needs of youth in
alternative settings and their lost educational opportunities?
In order to address the needs of students in alternative settings,
I recommend the following data elements:
1. Data on how many youth are receiving educational services in
alternative education and juvenile justice schools on an annual basis.
Currently, we must rely on census data reflecting the number of
students in alternative or juvenile justice schools on a given day
rather than the total served on an annual basis.
2. Data on the characteristics of the student populations, i.e.,
age-grade level, race, gender, learning or behavioral disabilities,
histories of prior school performance, dropout, suspension, and
expulsion.
3. Data on the educational experiences and achievement gains made
by the students while in these alternative educational settings.
4. Data on outcomes after students leave these alternative
educational settings, i.e., return to school, GED, drop-out, etc.
What systems need to be involved in addressing issues/needs for
youth in alternative settings?
It is imperative to mandate data collection in order to describe
and explain the inputs-activities-results-outcomes of what is now
occurring in these alternative educational settings. From these data-
based descriptions and explanations can come specific and informed
policy recommendations. However, it is essential that our public
schools and alternative education and juvenile justice schools develop
protocol and agreements for the placement and return of students
between these two educational systems.
I would be pleased to talk more or provide more specifics if you
would like. Please feel free to contact me.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Linda Brooke, Director of Government Relations and Education Services,
Texas Juvenile Probation Commission, Austin, TX.
Dear Ms. Brooke: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Dr. Cynthia Cave, Director,
Office of Student Services, Department of Education, Richmond, VA.
Dear Dr. Cave: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Dr. Cave's Responses to Questions for the Record
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
Every youth in an alternative educational setting should be able to
be ``counted'' through a data management system. In Virginia, the
development of a student data system, known as the Educational
information Management System (EIMS), has made this possible. As school
divisions enter data in the system, every student is assigned a unique,
randomly selected number known as a ``state testing identifier'' that
stays with the student through his or her career in the commonwealth's
public schools. The identifier allows the Virginia Department of
Education (VDOE) to follow students as they move from school to school,
and as they transfer in and/or out of the Virginia public school
system.
The academic record of each student can be linked to the
identifier, as can student demographic data, and school indicators,
such as attendance, discipline, and educational plans, programs, and
placements. Such a system enables not only individual student
monitoring that enables early identification of at risk children,
interventions, and transition support, but also disaggregated analysis
of educational outcomes by student subgroups and categories.
For example, state assessment results and graduation and dropout
rates can be disaggregated by students who have experienced alternative
education settings. Information can be further disaggregated by gender,
ethnicity/race, and other characteristics of students, such as having
disabilities, being economically disadvantaged, or being limited
English Proficient, migrant, or homeless. Disaggregated data analysis
provides the information necessary for supporting at risk children and
youth through identification of priority areas of need and strategic
and coordinated use of resources.
A student placed in an alternative educational setting should
arrive with a complete academic record and education history, which
indicates courses, grade level, assessment results, individualized
special education plan if appropriate, and educational and career goals
and interests. In addition, the information provided to those educating
and supporting the student in the alternative setting should include
student supports being provided and those needed. These could include
health related supports, counseling, and any mental health, substance
abuse, or other therapeutic treatment. All of this information should
be maintained while the student is in the alternative setting, in order
that it may be provided to a receiving school upon release from the
alternative setting, or upon transition to a ``step down'' alternative
placement. The purpose of the development of a plan and record that
follows the student and includes this information is to ensure the
timely provision of appropriate educational programs and other supports
to students, whether they are being placed in, or returning from, a
juvenile correctional facility, a detention center, or a public or
private alternative school.
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
In the broadest sense, youth in alternative settings should be in
the center of what should be interlocking systems that affect them at
national, state, and local levels, including education, law
enforcement, courts, juvenile justice and detention, social, economic,
and health and mental health supports, and government. At the state
level, development of re-enrollment regulations by the Virginia Board
of Education and of post release mental health service transition
regulations by the Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice illustrate the
collaboration and alignment of systems necessary to ensure effective
planning for the academic success and continuing improvement of
incarcerated youth, or those in post dispositional detention programs.
The purpose of the re-enrollment regulations are to foster
coordination and communication among court services units, school
divisions, detention centers, juvenile correctional centers, the
family, and the student in planning for the educational needs of
students in transition to long term detention or incarceration and when
released back into the community. They were developed through the work
of a 16 member task force, including representatives of parents,
citizens, and youth advocates, principals from general public,
alternative, detention, and Department of Correctional Education
schools, parole officers, a school division central office
administrator, and representatives from the Departments of Education,
Correctional Education, and Juvenile Justice. The committee met for
over a year to develop the regulations for the Virginia Board of
Education's consideration, identifying barriers and issues and the
procedures necessary to overcome them. The implementation of the
regulations was supported through statewide institutes, presentations,
and training for all stakeholders. Continuing technical support and
follow up is necessary to ensure that the regulations are being
followed and used as planned. Continuing communication among the state
agencies and among representatives of school divisions and detention
and correctional education programs is also a necessary component to
ensure ongoing effectiveness. The regulations have provided a structure
for promoting and requiring that communication.
The state regulations governing mental health, substance abuse, and
therapeutic treatment services plans for incarcerated youth were also
developed by a task force representing stage and local agencies.
Members of the task force included the state Departments of
Correctional Education, Education, Medical Assistance Services,
Rehabilitative Services, Social Services, and Corrections. Other
members included representatives from local community service boards,
post-dispositional detention coordinators, local government, youth
advocates, the General Assembly, and attorneys specializing in mental
disabilities law. The group met for over a year, and asked for the
advice and participation of community agency representatives to develop
the regulations. The regulations also provide structure for an
integrated approach to service transition, including requirements for
local interagency memoranda of understanding, eligibility reviews,
transition planning meetings, timelines, and the development of a
mental health transition plan for the student.
The structure of the alternative educational program itself should
reflect an alignment and integration of systems, from instruction and
academic strategies to student supports, to the application of
policies, to organizational management. A rigorous academic program
that reflects state standards and includes analysis of data to provide
individualized assistance and planning is one of the several
overlapping systems. Learning cannot take place if barriers exist, and
the counseling, behavioral management instruction, mentoring, health
and mental health, and transition supports provided to students and
families comprise the necessary student support system. Policies
enacted within the educational program's administration, including
expectations for behavior and hours of instruction, affect student
outcomes. Organizational structure, including staffing ratios, training
and professional development, information management systems, and
culture and climate, provides the umbrella that can hinder or help
student success. None of these ``systems'' should be considered in a
vacuum, but should be aligned with a common goal of enabling student
achievement.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Leonard Dixon, M.S., Executive Director,
Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility, Detroit, MI.
Dear Mr. Dixon: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Janeen Steel, Esq., Executive Director,
Learning Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Dear Ms. Steel: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Ms. Steel's Responses to Questions for the Record
Thank you again for allowing us to testify at the House Education
and Labor Subcommittee Hearing on March 12, 2009, entitled Lost
Education Opportunities in Alternative Settings.
Below are our responses to the additional questions posed to us,
which were as follows: 1) What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternative settings and their lost educational
opportunities; and 2) What systems need to be involved in addressing
the educational needs of this population? How might they work together
to better serve the educational needs of this population?
As a component to answering these questions Learning Rights Law
Center has also made specific recommendations to help prevent youth
from ending up in alternative schools and ultimately preventing
involvement in the juvenile justice system. Prevention is the best
policy to pursue when addressing the lost educational opportunities
that are a reality of alternative educational settings.
We are attaching several abstracts of reports that discuss the
issues facing youth in alternative settings as well as articles about
the expulsion rates facing pre-school children. (See Attachment A).
These articles are not only informative, but provide the Committee with
numerous resources of organizations working on behalf of youth. This
information will hopefully be of use as the Committee analyzes its next
steps.
Question #1: What kind of data is needed to best address the needs
of youth in alternative settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
At the hearing there was much testimony about why alternative
educational settings are good and what it would take to make them
better. Too often there is a working assumption that alternative
education settings are necessary and that all students who attend them
deserve to be there. As a threshold issue, we want to ensure that the
Committee and all legislators first consider whether or not alternative
education settings should exist in their current form, and if so, what
narrow range of students should attend them and under what specific
circumstances.
a. Are we all talking about the same schools/settings?
Not all states define alternate education schools the same way.
This may partially explain the problem of data collection for
alternative education settings. The term ``alternative setting'' can
describe Charter and Magnet schools, but the ``lost educational
opportunities'' are not happening in these alternative schools. When we
are discussing ``lost educational opportunities'' we are discussing
schools designed for: 1) expelled students; 2) students in detention
facilities; 3) students transitioning back into community from juvenile
hall, boot camps, or other detention settings; 4) students wrestling
with truancy and other at-risk behavior; 5) pregnant and parenting
students; 6) older students or those who need credit recovery; 7)
students wanting independent study; and 7) special education eligible
youth who are segregated because of their foster care status,
delinquency status or because the public school will not provide the
proper services (typically private and private non-profit schools).
As the Committee considers future action we urge you to keep in
mind what kind of alternative school is being described or lauded by
those who testify at hearings, lobby, who write articles. Following is
an example. While there was testimony offered at the subcommittee
hearing about the rigorous requirements of Juvenile Justice Alternative
Education Programs (JJAEP) in Texas, the Committee did not have the
opportunity to hear about the Disciplinary Alternative Education
Program (DAEP) in Texas. DAEP run schools are also ``alternative
schools.'' In stark contrast to the JJAEP schools, whose structure and
standard's based curriculum were discussed, DAEP schools have less
structure and a shortened academic day. Therefore, the specific type of
alternative school is relevant to any analysis or policy goal.
The alternative school settings I described are plagued with a
variety of problems including:
1. Lack of oversight by the local school boards and state education
agencies;
2. Lack of special education services and qualified special
education teachers for youth with disabilities;
3. High turnover of teachers and absenteeism by school staff; and
4. Punitive behavior management rather than counseling and
interventions that prevent and control negative behavior.
In regards to the alternative schools that are private/nonprofit,
special education students are moved into these restrictive (and
expensive) schools because sufficient mental health support is not
available on comprehensive public school campuses. As a result, we
recommend an increase in mental health (e.g. counseling) services on
public school campuses and a relaxing of any restriction on federal
mental health dollars that would impede funds going to school-based
mental health.
b. What Data Is Needed?
Data is needed to determine the breakdown in the systems described
in the next section. Data is needed for the following purposes: 1) To
understand why push out occurs by looking at past practices by local
education agencies with regard to alternative education students,
including what preventative interventions were attempted (if any), and
what rates of what types of students (race, age, disability, foster
youth status, etc.) are being referred to alternative schools ; 2) To
understand who is pushing these students out and for what reason
through the collection of data on ``feeder schools'' to alternative
educational settings; and 3) To understand the make-up of alternative
schools by tracking what classes of students are pushed out into
alternative settings (including the overrepresentation of youth of
color).
There are three people who the Committee may be interested in
speaking with in regards to data collection. First is Professor Denise
Herz at Cal. State L.A. She is at the forefront of research on foster
youth crossing over into the delinquency system. In her past
investigations she has gathered information on risk and resiliency
factors for increased delinquency, including how education fits in.
Professor Herz is also familiar with evidenced based mental health
services and can discuss what interventions have been proven to reduce
at-risk and generally disruptive behavior.
Second, is Jackie Wong of the California Department of Education,
Foster Youth Services. Ms. Wong is not only familiar with issues of
foster youth and alternative schools, but she is also deeply involved
in California's efforts to track students by assigning them a unique
identifier. These measures all part of California's desires to obtain
better data and Ms. Wong may be familiar with this state's successes
and failures, which should guide any federal efforts to do the same.
For qualitative rather than quantitative data, the Committee may
benefit from hearing the voices of youth who have been in alternative
school settings. Kim McGillicudy ``McGill'' is one of the Directors at
Youth Justice Coalition, a community-based group for at-risk youth. Ms.
McGill works with many youth who have been in or are currently in
alternative schools and she is often the voice for these youth.
Additionally, Ms. McGill helps run a charter school that was started
because of the failings of other alternative schools in the Los Angeles
area.
1. Why Push Out Occurs--Review of Past Practices
Students who are in the foster care or juvenile justice system have
usually faced a loss of school services, removals, discrimination and/
or denial or lack of special education services. In addition, some
foster youth have been denied services and supports by the controlling
child welfare agency. These students should not be punished because of
failures of the systems/agencies required to assist them.
To assist in understanding this issue there should be a federally
mandated education review processes to increase accountability and to
supplement the current legal standards. This review should include an
evaluation of what has occurred prior to a student's placement at the
alternative school. The review should also track transfers from one
school to another (sometime called ``Opportunity Transfers''),
expulsions and placements in segregated special education program.
Also, youth currently in alternative schools should have their
prior educational records reviewed and evaluated to understand their
individual educational needs and determine past failures. To address
this need, we suggest that each youth who has had contact with the
juvenile justice system receive a full review of their past educational
history. This would require the system/agency to ensure that youth are
not being punished for behaviors that were supposed to be addressed by
the public school. This review would provide information regarding any
failures by the school system and other agencies to identify
undiagnosed disabilities.
Who Would Be Responsible for the Review?
School districts would be responsible for this review prior to
expulsion, removals or placement in alternative settings including
segregated settings for foster youth.
Probation departments would be responsible for review prior to
recommending detention of any kind for first time offenders.
Social workers would have to review records to prevent youth
crossing from the foster care system to the juvenile justice system.
In California the Rules of Court and the Welfare and Institutions
Code Sections 241.1 do require some review, but it is not sufficient
and these protections are not nationwide. (See Attachment B)
See Attachment C for Learning Rights Law Center description of
projects that use a multidisciplinary approach to stop youth from being
pushed into alternative settings or into the juvenile justice system:
Crossover Youth Project and School to Prison Reversal Project
2. Who is Pushing Students Out and for What Reason--Data on ``Feeder
Schools''
Data is needed to determine the public schools that ``feed'' into
alternative schools. Too often schools push out students willy nilly
and in violation of their own local education agency's policies because
there is little disincentive to get rid of youth labeled as ``problem
students''. Neither local schools nor the local education agency can
account for how many students were referred out, for what reason, what
types of students this includes (e.g. race, age, disability) and
perhaps most importantly, whether or not these students actually
enrolled in an alternative school or simply fell between the cracks and
are now truant.
3. Make-up of Students in Alternative Settings.
The data regarding the make-up of students in alternative settings
is not tracked effectively. It is difficult to gauge why students
entered the school and from what home school they arrived. Defining
characteristics, like foster care or disability status, are also at
times elusive. Also, statistics indicate that overwhelmingly youth of
color are ending up in alternative education schools. As a result, data
should be kept on these traits, as well as other suspect classes to
monitor whether or not education laws (and federal education dollars)
are being used to discriminate.
Question #2: What systems need to be involved in addressing the
educational needs of this population? How might they work together to
better serve the educational needs of this population?
Preventing placement in alternative schools should be our first
plan of action. This requires collaboration with the multiple systems
that work with youth who are in or at-risk of involvement in the
juvenile justice system or in the foster care system. First, we need to
define the systems involved and discuss how they can collaborate.
Because we are most familiar with California we are listing the
agencies/systems in California and how they can work better with the
other systems.
1. Public School System
Public schools should utilize their university partners to enhance
their ability to evaluate their programs to determine their
effectiveness. Schools should work more closely with community-based
organizations serving youth. Structurally, states should provide more
funding opportunities for community-based organizations to work with
schools.
Every school should know the community-based organizations in their
community. There are resources in the community, but they are under-
utilized by public schools, who often work in silos. Also, improving
partnerships with organizations rooted in the community can also help
to decrease racial disparities and discrimination.
Students with learning disabilities must be provided with research-
based services, accommodations, and technology support. Laws must be
changed or enhanced to reiterate the requirement that federal dollars
be used on research-based services (which exist presently), and that
those programs must be implemented with fidelity.
We know that the harmful effects of school exclusion policies are
not evenly distributed among the student population; students of color
are more likely to be suspended or removed. Schools must work on
deliberate plans to go beyond data analysis of racial disparities to
take actual steps to decrease the number of minority youth at risk of
being placed in alternative educational settings.
If schools implement a school-wide behavior management system and
structure that educates based on individual needs, they can likely
prevent both individual exclusion and the overrepresentation of youth
of color who are systematically diagnosed as emotionally disturbed.
2. Community-Based Organizations
In addition to Learning Rights Law Center there are numerous
agencies that work with at-risk youth. Each community should
investigate the community organizations that work with at-risk youth.
3. Probation System
The department of probation works with youth involved in the
juvenile justice system. In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County
Probation Department provides supervision both in schools, in the
community and in detention facilities. Probation should work with both
community based organizations and schools to prevent the entry into the
system.
4. Mental Health Systems
Mental health systems include services provided in the community
through publicly funded insurance programs (e.g. Medic-Aid and Medi-
Cal) special education and non-profit agencies. More dollars should be
freed up for community-based mental health services (which have been
proven to be more effective and save dollars). Federal laws and
regulations should state a preference or requirement for community-
based programs that are evidence-based. Mental health services on-site
at public schools should be increased to prevent the need for
alternative educational settings.
5. Child Welfare Agencies--Department of Children and Family Services
(DCFS)
Social workers provide services and support to children who have
been removed from their parents for abuse and/or neglect. If services
are withheld or the incorrect support/intervention is implemented,
behavior can escalate (Note, Denise Herz, mentioned above is the expert
on this topic). As a result the Child Welfare system must be required
to use evidence-based interventions in order to prevent the need for
costly alternative schools, especially special education schools for
emotionally disturbed youth (which are filled with under-served foster
youth). Child welfare agencies must better coordinate with the public
schools to ensure quick enrollment and school stability. Both of these
are currently guaranteed by federal law (McKinney Vento Act) but rarely
enforced.
6. Universities
At Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and at the UCLA School of Law,
there are juvenile justice programs to address the needs of court
involved youth. Learning Rights is the partner organization with UCLA.
These partnerships multiply the efficacy of resources. As a result
there should be an increase in partnerships with universities, which
can provide research, best practices, expertise, and data analysis
support. Universities should coordinate with hospitals, mental health
programs, and other service agencies. Any federal funding limitations
that constrain this exchange should be lifted.
#3 learning rights law center recommendations to prevent the need for
alternative education schools
Based on our experience and expertise of working with court-
involved youth for nine years we are making the following
recommendations to ensure youth are getting the education services in
the public school and prevent further placement in alternative
settings.
a. Recommendations for legislative change:
i. Amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEIA) to list specific related services in the area of mental
health that are evidence based (e.g. wraparound, multi-systemic
therapy, therapeutic behavior services). See 34 CFR 300.34.
ii. Amend No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Part D, ``Prevention and
Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At-Risk'' to give more ``teeth'' to requirements for
behavior services to assist at-risk youth.
Part D requires that states participating must require that the
Local Education Agencies (LEA) must remain financially responsible for
the education of youth, even if they are expelled and transferred to an
alternative school.
iii. Mandate educational interventions instead of suspensions and
removals.
Education should not merely be an option for students, but rather a
fundamental right. School districts should provide mandatory, quality
educational programs in the least restrictive environment rather than
suspending or removing students for behavior that can be through an
educational intervention. The use of suspensions and removals is not an
adequate remedy to address student behavioral difficulties.
iv. Implement and enforce school-wide behavior management
structures.
There must be researched based structures in schools to address
behavior and that address the individual youth. A student who is
struggling academically, socially and emotionally may display behavior
that could be addressed. Each student should have a behavior management
plan if needed to address their social and emotional needs, address
their academic needs, and assist them with actually being successful
students. There is nothing in the law that supports this. We currently
have laws that are punitive in nature, and there is no guidance for
schools to be supportive of students' needs. Currently, for students
with special needs, there are legally mandated requirements to address
behavior BUT these requirements are currently not enforced.
v. Support teachers to prevent turnover and absences to ensure
consistency in educational programs.
There must be some accountability structure in place to address the
incredible turnover and absenteeism in high poverty schools. We must
find out how to keep teachers and support them.
vi. Expand school counseling and social work services in
comprehensive campuses.
Currently, school counselors are overwhelmed with their
responsibilities. The national average for high schools is 229 students
per counselor, while in the K-8 system has an alarming 882:1 ratio. We
should increase the capacity of school counselors at school sites to
not only address students' ability to function in the school setting,
but also to provide the safety net for students. Students turn to
counselors to engage in confidential conversations with them to discuss
issues that they may have nowhere else to turn.
Moreover, the increased presence of social workers on school
campuses can benefit students. Social workers can work on the
development of community resources to help the family. They can also
bring community resources to the schools.
vii. Assess educational services prior to transfer or removal.
There should be a written plan for every student prior to any
transfer or removal. Currently, this is not happening. We need to
strengthen the laws regarding preventive measures that need to be taken
before transfer or removal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide information to the
Committee. We are happy to provide any additional information you may
need.
______
U.S. Congress,
[Via Facsimile],
Washington, DC, March 17, 2009.
Dr. Robert Whitmore, Chief Executive Officer,
Manito, Inc., Chambersburg, PA.
Dear Dr. Whitmore: Thank you for testifying at the March 12, 2009
Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee and Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security joint committee
hearing on ``Lost Education Opportunities in alternative settings.''
Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Chairwoman of the Healthy
Families and Communities Subcommittee, has asked that you respond in
writing to the following questions:
1. Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that there is
little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternate settings and
their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to best address
the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost educational
opportunities?
2. What systems need to be involved in addressing issues for youth
in alternate settings? How might they work together to better serve the
educational needs of this population?
Please send an electronic version of your written response to the
questions to the Committee staff by close of business on Tuesday, March
24, 2009--the date on which the hearing record will close. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Committee.
Sincerely,
George Miller, Chairman.
______
Dr. Whitmore's Responses to Questions for the Record
Question 1: ``Throughout the hearing, we continuously heard that
there is little to no comprehensive data on youth in alternative
settings and their educational outcomes. What kind of data is needed to
best address the needs of youth in alternate settings and their lost
educational opportunities?
It has been my experience that youth placed in alternative settings
are usually placed for very short periods of time. This time period can
be from a few days to usually not more than six months. The focus of
this placement is usually for behavior or treatment reasons and
addressing these issues is more important to what is occurring with the
child than how she/he is progressing academically. These placements are
already tracked and outcomes measured through the juvenile justice or
mental health systems.
Most students, when they enter alternative placements, are behind
academically. Often a student has also been in multiple alternative
placements and there is a lack of educational records of the student's
progress. School records are often incomplete and have been shifted
between placement settings. The responsibility of the alternative
placement setting should be to compile an accurate academic record and
academic achievement level for the student. Once this is completed the
educational focus should be on improving the reading, writing, and math
proficiency levels of the student. When the child leaves the
alternative placement they should have an up to date academic
transcript and educational plan, and be able to show improvement in
reading and math scores on a standardized assessment tool.
Question 2: What systems need to be involved in addressing issues
for youth in alternate settings? How might they work together to better
serve the educational needs of this population?
Every aspect of the whole child should be addressed when the child
is placed in an alternate setting. The systems that may impact these
children include the educational system, mental health system, juvenile
justice system, children and youth social service system, and public
health system. The needs presented by these children are complex and
interconnected. The total needs of the whole child should be our focus
and this can not be addressed by categorical systems.
We need to develop a plan to deliver seamless holistic services to
children at risk. A child's presenting problem(s) should be addressed
regardless of labels, diagnosis, what system a child falls into, or
funding. As a provider of services to these lost children, I see a
consistent shifting of responsibility for children's care between
competing systems and competing funding streams. Many times children do
not receive services because a particular system does not want to pay
for the services. This does not help the child and the problems
continue to escalate.
The best way to deliver holistic and seamless services to children
is to re-design the way we deliver services. Categorical systems should
operate at the federal level to provide vision, research, and the
development of promising practices and evidence based programs for
addressing specific needs of children. At the state and local level
categorical systems should be eliminated. At the state level a
Department of Children could be established that provides a
comprehensive, seamless and holistic approach to children. This
Department would integrate all of the research and promising practices
developed for children and provide resources and guidance to the local
providers of services.
At the local level services are delivered to children and their
families. The school should be the central location and depository of
all services to children. Each school district should have a
comprehensive array of services that can be available for children.
This continuum of services should include education services, mental
health services, family counseling, drug and alcohol counseling, public
health services, and housing and poverty assistance. Children can be
assessed to determine risk and protective factors that are prevalent
within their lives. An intervention plan of supported services can be
developed for the child that addresses the identified risk factors and
reinforces protective factors. These services will be available within
the school environment and supported with non-categorical funding.
These thoughts are not presented with an accompanying request for
allocating more money at the federal level. Our existing services are
inefficient and ineffective in the delivery of educational and
supportive services to children in alternate placements. We are
spending excessive money and children are getting lost because they are
bounced between systems and constant discussion about who is going to
take responsibility for their care. Creating a seamless integrated and
comprehensive network of services for children that are needs focused
and delivered from the school system will create a wonderful support
for children and prevent them from becoming lost. This seamless system
would also be more cost effective, more efficient, and allow us to do
more prevention work with younger children.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
______
[Additional submissions of Ms. Steel follow:]
ABSTRACTS OF ARTICLES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article Article Abstract/Key Facts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 GAO., Child Welfare & Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a stronger Role in Helping States
Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services.
Findings:
In 2001 (in 19 states, 30 counties) parents placed over 12,700 children into the child welfare
or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. (placement)
Nationwide number likely higher
Child welfare or JJ system not designed to serve children who have not been abused or
neglected or who have not committed a delinquent act.
Poor health insurance, inadequate supplies of mental health (MH) services, limited
availability of services through MH agencies and schools, & difficulties meeting eligibility rules--
influenced such placement.
Practices that might reduce such placements: reduce cost of or fund M services, improving
access to MH services, and expanding array of available services.
Recommendations:
Health & Human Serv. (HHS) & Dept. of Justice (DOJ) should consider feasibility of tracking
children in such placements.
HHS, DOJ & Dept. of Ed should develop an interagency working group to identify causes of
misunderstandings by Officials & create action plan.
These agencies should also continue to encourage states to evaluate the programs that they
fund & determine effective means of disseminating the results of this and other studies.
Quotes:
In some cases, parents must choose to keep their children at home without receiving the MH or
supportive services they need or to remove them from their home and seek alternative living
arrangements by placing them in the child welfare or JJ system to obtain MH services.
More likely to be adolescent boys between the age of 13 and 18.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Truman Joseph., Disability & Delinquency: How Failures to Identify, Accommodate and Serve Youth with
Education-Related Disabilities Lead to Their Disproportionate Representation in the Delinquency System
Quotes:
The Delinquency System disproportionately attracts children with education-related
disabilities both because those children are more likely to engage in delinquent conduct than their
non-disabled peers & because the adults responsible for educational & delinquency systems are more
likely to label and treat children with educational-related disabilities as delinquent.
Of the 100k children who are arrested & incarcerated each year as many as 50% suffer from
mental or emotional disturbance. (4)
Jails unprepared to deal with these kids. Medication not given or monitored and guards do not
know how to respond to these kids.
Failure of some schools system personnel to find, evaluate and serve children with
disabilities fuels the over-representation of disabled children in the JJ system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Dignity in Schools Campaign., The Right to Education in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice Systems in
the US.
Introduction
Education is a fundamental human right
Nearly every state constitution recognizes the right of education.
US commitment to education incarcerated persons has varied through history.
Under Human rights law U.S has made international commitments.
School to Prison Pipelin
School system has become a key entry point into the JJ system.
Suspensions & expulsions are shown to increase the likelihood of school dropout incarceration
and police presence in school has criminalized an array of juvenile behavior resulting in arrest that
would previously be handled by administrators.
Mental health issues are addressed through punishment rather than treatment.
Incarceration rates.
Of the 100,000 children who are arrested 50% have some mental or emotional issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 Ryan, Joseph., Marshall, Jane Marie., Herz, Denise., Hernandez, Pedro.,Juvenile Delinquency in Child
Welfare: Investigating Group Home Effects
The study investigates the relationship between group home placements in child welfare and the risk of
delinquency. The results indicate that the relative risk of delinquency is approximately two and one
half times greater for adolescents with at least one group home placement as compared with youth in
foster care settings. This finding raises serious questions about the use of group homes for victims
of physical abuse and neglect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Ed Source., California's Continuation Schools
More than 10% of California's Public H.S students attend some kind of ``alternative'' program
Often identified as ``struggling'' within a regular HS and in danger of not graduating on time
or dropping out.
Four Main Types: Continuation Schools; Community Day Schools, County run community schools;
independent study programs
Continuation school students more likely to drop out
Students of these schools more likely to be minorities.
Students more likely to be in foster care or living with relative other than parent
Regulatory framework ambiguous and fragmented.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Gilliam., Pre-Kindergarteners Left Behind: Expulsion Rates in State Pre-K Programs
Pre-k students are expelled at a rate more than three times that of their older peers in the k-
12 grades
Although rates of expulsion vary widely among the 40 states funding pre-k, state expulsions
rates for pre-k exceed those in k-12 classes in all but three states.
Pre-k expulsion rates vary by classroom setting. Expulsion lowest in classrooms located in
public schools and Head Start and highest in faith-affiliated centers and for-profit child care.
The likelihood of expulsion decreases significantly with access to classroom-based behavioral
consultation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Ramsey., Analysis of Preschool Expulsion
Intoduction
K-12 compulsory
California children not required to go to pre-k
Pre-K students do not have the same sort of legal protections as K-12
California's Pre-School Framework
The variety of programs available means that different laws and regulations apply to each.
Such as staff-child ratios, definitions of preschool child age, staff qualifications and program
contact.
State funded pre-schools can expel children for both ``behavioral and non-behavioral
reasons''--Behavior that endanger the health and safety of other children or staff or Late pick ups or
excessive unexcused absences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
California Rules of Court and Welfare and Institutions Code 241.1
1. 2009 California Rules of Court to Ensure Education Issues Are
Addressed by the Juvenile Court
Rule 5.651. Educational rights of children before the juvenile
court (a) Applicability (Sec. Sec. 213.5, 319, 358, 358.1, 364,
366.21, 366.22, 366.23, 366.26, 366.28, 366.3, 727.2, 11404.1; Gov.
Code, Sec. 7579.1; 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794;
42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.) This rule has the following
applicability and incorporates the rights established by the following
laws: (1) The rule applies to all children for whom petitions have been
filed under section 300, 601, or 602; (2) The rule applies to every
hearing before the court affecting or related to the child's education,
including detention, jurisdiction, disposition, and all regularly
scheduled review hearings; and (3) The rule incorporates the rights
established by the following laws: the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.), the Americans With
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.), section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq.), and the
education rights of foster children as provided in Assembly Bill 490
(Stats. 2003, ch. 862) and Assembly Bill 1858 (Stats. 2004, ch. 914).
(b) Conduct of hearings related to, or that may affect, a child's
education (1) To the extent the information is available, at the
initial or detention hearing the court must consider: (A) Who holds
educational rights; (B) If the child was enrolled in, and is attending,
the child's school of origin as defined in Education Code section
48853.5(e); (C) If the child is no longer attending the school of
origin, whether; (i) In accordance with the child's best interest, the
educational liaison, as defined in Education Code section 48853.5(b),
in consultation with, and with the agreement of, the child and the
parent or guardian or other educational representative, recommends that
the child's right to attend the school of origin be waived; (ii) Prior
to making any recommendation to move a foster child from his or her
school of origin, the educational liaison provided the child and the
person holding the right to make educational decisions for the child
with a written explanation stating the basis for the recommendation and
how this recommendation serves the foster child's best interest as
provided in Education Code section 48853.5(d)(3); (iii) Without
obtaining a waiver, the child was not afforded his or her right to
attend his or her school of origin under Education Code section
48853.5(d)(1); and (iv) The child was immediately enrolled in the new
school as provided in Education Code section 48853.5(d)(4). (D) Whether
the parent's or guardian's educational rights should be temporarily
limited; and (E) Taking into account other statutory considerations
regarding placement, whether the out-of-home placement: (i) Is the
environment best suited to meet the unique needs of children with
disabilities and to serve the child's best interest if he or she has a
disability; and (ii) Promotes educational stability through proximity
to the child's school.
(2) At the disposition hearing and at all subsequent hearings
provided for in (a), the juvenile court must address and determine the
child's general and special education needs, identify a plan for
meeting those needs, and provide a clear, written statement using
Findings and Orders Limiting Right to Make Educational Decisions for
the Child, Appointing Educational Representative, and Determining
Child's Educational Needs (form JV-535), specifying the person who
holds the educational rights for the child. The court's findings and
orders must address the following:
(A) Whether the child's educational, physical, mental health, and
developmental needs are being met; (B) Any services, assessments, or
evaluations, including those for special education and related
services, that the child may need; (C) Who is directed to take the
necessary steps for the child to begin receiving any necessary
assessments, evaluations, or services; (D) If the child's educational
placement changed during the reporting period, whether (i) The child's
educational records, including any evaluations of a child with a
disability, were transferred to the new educational placement within
two business days of the request for the child's enrollment in the new
educational placement; and (ii) The child is enrolled in and attending
school; and (E) Whether the parent's or guardian's educational rights
should be limited; (i) If the court finds the parent's or guardian's
educational rights should not be limited, the court must direct the
parent to his or her rights and responsibilities in regard to the
child's education as provided in rule 5.650(e) and (f); or (ii) If the
court finds the parent's or guardian's educational rights should be
limited, the court must determine who will hold the child's educational
rights. The court must explain to the parent or guardian why the court
is limiting his or her educational rights and must direct the parent or
guardian to the rights and responsibilities of the education
representative as provided in rule 5.650(e) and (f).
(c) Reports for hearings related to, or that may affect, a child's
education This subdivision applies at all hearings, including
disposition and joint assessment hearings. The court must ensure that,
to the extent the information was available, the social worker and the
probation officer provided the following information in the report for
the hearing: (1) The child's age, behavior, educational and
developmental achievement, and any discrepancies in achievement in
education and in cognitive, physical, and emotional development; (2)
Identification of the child's educational, physical, mental health, or
developmental needs; (3) Whether the child is participating in
developmentally appropriate extracurricular and social activities; (4)
Whether the child is attending a comprehensive, regular, public or
private school; (5) Whether the child may have physical, mental, or
learning-related disabilities or other special education needs and is
in need of or is already receiving special education and related
services as provided by the laws incorporated in rule 5.651(a)(3); (6)
If the child is 0 to 3 years old, whether the child may be eligible for
or is already receiving services available under the California Early
Intervention Services Act (Gov. Code, Sec. 95000 et seq.), and whether
those services are appropriate; (7) If the child is between 3 and 5
years and is or may be eligible for special education services, whether
the child is receiving the early educational opportunities provided by
Education Code section 56001; (8) Whether the child is receiving
appropriate services through a current individualized education
program; (9) Whether the child is or may be eligible for regional
center services or is already receiving regional center services.
Copies of the current individual family plan as defined in section 1436
under title 20 of the United States Code and the current life quality
assessments as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 4570
should be attached to the report; (10) Whether the parent's or
guardian's educational rights have been or should be limited; (11) If
the social worker or probation officer recommends limiting the parent's
or guardian's right to make educational decisions, the reasons those
rights should be limited and the actions that the parent or guardian
may take to restore those rights if they are limited; (12) If the
parent's or guardian's educational rights have been limited, who holds
the child's educational rights; (13) Recommendations and case plan
goals to meet the child's identified educational, physical, mental
health, and developmental needs; (14) Whether any orders to direct an
appropriate person to take the necessary steps for the child to begin
receiving assessments, evaluations, or services, including those for
special education and related services, are requested; and; (15) In the
case of joint assessments, a separate statement by each of the two
departments regarding whether the respective social worker and
probation officer believe that the child may have a disability and
whether the child is in need of special education and related services
or requires evaluation as required by title 20 United States Code
section 1412(a)(3), Education Code section 56425, or section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
(d) Continuances or stay of jurisdiction If any continuance
provided for in rules 5.686 and 5.782 or stay of jurisdiction provided
for in rule 5.645 is granted, the child must continue to receive all
services or accommodations required by the laws incorporated in rule
5.651(a)(3).
(e) Change of placement affecting the child's right to attend the
school of origin This subdivision applies to all changes of placement
including the initial placement and all subsequent changes of
placement. (1) At any hearing that relates to or may affect the child's
education and that follows a removal of the child from the school of
origin the court must find that: (A) The social worker or probation
officer notified the court, the child's attorney, and the educational
representative or surrogate parent that the proposed placement or
change of placement would result in a removal of the child from the
child's school of origin. The court must find that the notice was
provided within 24 hours, excluding nonjudicial days, of the social
worker's or probation officer's determination that the proposed change
of placement would result in removal of the child from the school of
origin. (B) If the child had a disability and an active individualized
education program prior to removal, the social worker or probation
officer, at least 10 days before the change of placement, notified in
writing the local educational agency that provided a special education
program for the child prior to removal and the receiving special
education local plan area, as defined in Government Code section
7579.1, of the impending change of placement. (2) After receipt of the
notice in (1): (A) The child's attorney must, as appropriate, discuss
the proposed move from the school of origin with the child and the
person who holds educational rights. The child's attorney may request a
hearing by filing Request for Hearing Regarding Child's Education (form
JV-539). If requesting a hearing, the child's attorney must: (i) File
form JV-539 no later than two court days after receipt of the notice in
(1); and (ii) Provide notice of the court date, which will be no later
than seven calendar days after the form was filed, to the parents or
guardians, unless otherwise indicated on form JV-535; the social
worker; the probation officer; the educational representative or
surrogate parent; the foster youth liaison, as defined in Education
Code section 48853.5; the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA)
volunteer; and all other persons required by section 293. (B) The
person who holds educational rights may request a hearing by filing
form JV-539 no later than two court days after receipt of the notice in
(1). After receipt of the form, the clerk must notify the persons in
(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the hearing date. (C) The court on its own motion may
direct the clerk to set a hearing. (3) If removal from the school of
origin is disputed, the child must be allowed to remain in the school
of origin pending this hearing and pending any disagreement between the
child, parent, guardian, or educational representative and the school
district. (4) If the court, the child's attorney, or the person who
holds educational rights requests a hearing, at the hearing the court
must find that the social worker or probation officer provided a report
no later than two court days after form JV-539 was filed and that the
report included the information required by (b)(1)(C)(i) and (ii) and:
(A) Whether the foster child has been allowed to continue his or her
education in the school of origin for the duration of the academic
school year; (B) Whether a dispute exists regarding the request of a
foster child to remain in the school of origin and whether the foster
child has been afforded the right to remain in the school of origin
pending resolution of the dispute; (C) Information addressing whether
the information sharing and other requirements in section 16501.1(c)(2)
and Education Code section 49069.5 have been followed; (D) Information
addressing how the proposed change serves the best interest of the
child; (E) responses to the proposed change of placement from the child
if over 10 years old, the child's attorney, the parent or guardian, the
foster youth liaison, as defined in Education Code section 48853.5, and
the child's CASA volunteer, specifying whether each person agrees or
disagrees with the proposed change and, if any person disagrees,
stating why; (F) A statement from the person holding educational rights
regarding whether the proposed change of placement is in the child's
best interest and what efforts have been made to keep the child in the
school of origin; and (G) A statement from the social worker or
probation officer confirming that the child has not been segregated in
a separate school, or in a separate program within a school, based on
the child's status as a child in foster care.
(f) Court review of proposed change of placement affecting the
child's right to attend the school of origin (1) At the hearing set
under (e)(2), the court must: (A) Determine whether the proposed
placement meets the requirements of this rule and Education Code
sections 48853.5 and 49069.5 and whether the proposed plan is based on
the best interest of the child; (B) Determine what actions are
necessary to ensure the child's educational and disability rights; and
(C) Make the necessary findings and orders to enforce these rights,
which may include an order to set a hearing under section 362 to join
the necessary agencies regarding provision of services, including the
provision of transportation services, so that the child may remain in
his or her school of origin. (2) When considering whether it is in the
child's best interest to remain in the school of origin, the court must
consider the following: (A) Whether the parent, guardian, or other
educational representative believes that remaining in the school of
origin is in the child's best interest; (B) How the proposed change of
placement will affect the stability of the child's school placement and
the child's access to academic resources, services, and extracurricular
and enrichment activities; (C) Whether the proposed school placement
would allow the child to be placed in the least restrictive educational
program; and (D) Whether the child has the educational supports
necessary, including those for special education and related services,
to meet state academic achievement standards. (3) The court may make
its findings and orders on Findings and Orders Regarding Transfer From
School of Origin (form JV-538). Rule 5.651 adopted effective January 1,
2008.
Advisory Committee Comment
This rule incorporates the requirement of, and rights established
by, Assembly Bill 490 (Steinberg; Stats. 2003, ch. 862), Assembly Bill
1858 (Steinberg; Stats. 2004, ch. 914), the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This rule
does not limit these requirements or rights. To the extent necessary,
this rule establishes procedures to make these laws meaningful to
children in foster care.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 490, a child in, or at risk of
entering, foster care has a statutory right to a meaningful opportunity
to meet the state's academic achievement standards to which all
students are held. To afford the child this right, the juvenile court,
advocates, placing agencies, care providers, and educators must work
together to maintain stable school placements and ensure that the child
is placed in the least restrictive educational programs and has access
to the academic resources, services, and extracurricular and enrichment
activities that are available to other students. This rule, sections
362 and 727, and rule 5.575 provide procedures for ensuring that the
child's educational needs are met.
Congress has found that improving the educational performance of
children with disabilities is an essential prerequisite to ensuring
their equality of opportunity, full participation in education, and
economic self-sufficiency. Children in foster care are
disproportionately represented in the population of children with
disabilities and inherently face systemic challenges to attaining self-
sufficiency. Children in foster care have rights arising out of the
IDEA, the ADA, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. To
comply with federal requirements regarding the identification of
children with disabilities and the provision of services to those
children who qualify, the court, parent or guardian, placing agency,
attorneys, CASA volunteer, local education agencies, and educational
representatives must affirmatively address the child's educational
needs. The court must continually inquire about the education of the
child and the progress being made to enforce any rights the child has
under these laws.
2. Protections for Foster Youth At-Risk of Crossing Over Into the
Delinquency System
California Welfare and Institutions Code Sec 241.1.
(a) Whenever a minor appears to come within the description of both
Section 300 and Section 601 or 602, the county probation department and
the child welfare services department shall, pursuant to a jointly
developed written protocol described in subdivision (b), initially
determine which status will serve the best interests of the minor and
the protection of society. The recommendations of both departments
shall be presented to the juvenile court with the petition that is
filed on behalf of the minor, and the court shall determine which
status is appropriate for the minor. Any other juvenile court having
jurisdiction over the minor shall receive notice from the court, within
five calendar days, of the presentation of the recommendations of the
departments. The notice shall include the name of the judge to whom, or
the courtroom to which, the recommendations were presented.
(b) The probation department and the child welfare services
department in each county shall jointly develop a written protocol to
ensure appropriate local coordination in the assessment of a minor
described in subdivision (a), and the development of recommendations by
these departments for consideration by the juvenile court. These
protocols shall require, which requirements shall not be limited to,
consideration of the nature of the referral, the age of the minor, the
prior record of the minor's parents for child abuse, the prior record
of the minor for out-of-control or delinquent behavior, the parents'
cooperation with the minor's school, the minor's functioning at school,
the nature of the minor's home environment, and the records of other
agencies which have been involved with the minor and his or her family.
The protocols also shall contain provisions for resolution of
disagreements between the probation and child welfare services
departments regarding the need for dependency or ward status and
provisions for determining the circumstances under which a new petition
should be filed to change the minor's status.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (e), nothing in this section
shall be construed to authorize the filing of a petition or petitions,
or the entry of an order by the juvenile court, to make a minor
simultaneously both a dependent child and a ward of the court.
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (d), the
probation department and the child welfare services department, in
consultation with the presiding judge of the juvenile court, in any
county may create a jointly written protocol to allow the county
probation department and the child welfare services department to
jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be
designated as a dual status child, allowing the child to be
simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court. This protocol
shall be signed by the chief probation officer, the director of the
county social services agency, and the presiding judge of the juvenile
court prior to its implementation. No juvenile court may order that a
child is simultaneously a dependent child and a ward of the court
pursuant to this subdivision unless and until the required protocol has
been created and entered into. This protocol shall include: (1) A
description of the process to be used to determine whether the child is
eligible to be designated as a dual status child. (2) A description of
the procedure by which the probation department and the child welfare
services department will assess the necessity for dual status for
specified children and the process to make joint recommendations for
the court's consideration prior to making a determination under this
section. These recommendations shall ensure a seamless transition from
wardship to dependency jurisdiction, as appropriate, so that services
to the child are not disrupted upon termination of the wardship. (3) A
provision for ensuring communication between the judges who hear
petitions concerning children for whom dependency jurisdiction has been
suspended while they are within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court
pursuant to Section 601 or 602. A judge may communicate by providing a
copy of any reports filed pursuant to Section 727.2 concerning a ward
to a court that has jurisdiction over dependency proceedings concerning
the child. (4) A plan to collect data in order to evaluate the protocol
pursuant to Section 241.2.
______
Foster Care Education Advocacy--Crossover Youth Project
Foster youth face unending obstacles to obtaining consistent
education services and are many times segregated into special education
schools rather than education in the public education system with their
peers. As a result, LRLC provides direct education advocacy to ensure
foster youth are not segregated into special education schools and also
provides support with the Crossover Youth Project, which is outlined
below.
Crossover Youth Project
Learning Rights Crossover Youth Project was created when LRLC was
asked to participate in the AB129 pilot program sponsored by the Los
Angeles County Juvenile Court system. The goal of the pilot is to
prevent ``at-risk youth'' in the foster care system from ``crossing
over'' to the delinquency system by offering a multidisciplinary
approach to evaluating their needs. A multidisciplinary team (``MDT'')
including representatives from the Los Angeles County Department of
Child and Family Services (``DCFS''), the Probation Department, and the
Department of Mental Health, a placement specialist from the Los
Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services, and an
educational specialist from LRLC was established to evaluate the needs
of youth referred to the program, make recommendations regarding
placement and services deemed appropriate for the youth, and monitor
the implementation of the recommendations.
As a member of the MDT, LRLC evaluates the educational history of
youth referred to the program and creates a report detailing the
youth's education history, suspected educational needs, and potential
concerns regarding the youth's current educational placement and
services. Learning Rights then makes recommendations for improvement
and monitors implementation of the recommendations by providing
technical assistance to social workers, probation officers, and
education consultants hired by DCFS.
The AB129 pilot program began accepting referrals in May of 2007.
Since then some preliminary statistics have been gathered for 25 youth
receiving services from the MDT and a control group of 25 youth not
receiving services from the MDT. This data suggests that basic
educational facts necessary to ensure a youth is receiving appropriate
educational services are not being gathered for at-risk foster youth
not involved in the pilot program. 80% of the control group youth did
not have an education rights holder identified. When a youth's parents
are not involved in their life, an education rights holder must be
identified to make educational decisions for the youth. These decisions
include requesting and consenting to educational assessments and
changes in placement. Only 10% of youth involved in the pilot did not
have an education rights holder identified.
Additionally, over 60% of the youth involved in the pilot were
identified as having irregular school changes. This includes changes
that occur at irregular times during the school year for either
behavior concerns or placement transfers. This does not include changes
that occur at the end of the school year for reasons such as graduating
from middle or elementary school. Despite the age and background
similarities of the control group and the youth involved in the pilot,
only 25% of the control group youth were identified as having irregular
school changes. This suggests not that they actually had fewer
irregular school changes, but that fewer changes were identified for
them, meaning their educational history was not evaluated as
thoroughly.
Finally, while nearly 50% of the youth involved in the pilot were
identified as eligible for special education services, only 30% of
youth not involved in the pilot were identified as eligible for special
education services. Again, this tends to suggest not that fewer youth
were actually eligible for special education, but that fewer youth were
identified by the foster care system as eligible, meaning, again, that
their educational history was not evaluated as thoroughly.
These statistics show that without the presence of Learning Rights
on the MDT, the educational needs of this population would continue to
be overlooked.
Although data from the pilot program is still being collected, to
date, no youth involved in the pilot program have ``crossed-over'' from
the dependency system to the delinquency system.
Education Not Incarceration--School to Prison Pipeline Reversal Project
LRLC provides direct advocacy to youth involved in the juvenile
justice system. As part of our advocacy we have investigated the
schools in the juvenile halls and camps throughout Los Angeles. We
participate in the Education Reform Committee with the Probation
Department. We advocate for youth who are detained to have appropriate
education services. Two programs which service youth in the juvenile
justice system will be outlined below:
UCLA Juvenile Justice Partnership Project
LRLC is a community partner of UCLA. Through the Juvenile Justice
Project, UCLA School of Law Professor Jyoti Nanda jointly supervises
law students with LRLC staff members to address the needs of youth
involved in the juvenile justice system.
Los Angeles County has one of the highest youth incarceration rates
in the country. Up to 90% of the county's juvenile justice youth are
Latino or African American, and up to 70% of incarcerated youth
nationally are said to have some kind of disability. In recent reports,
the Department of Justice (DOJ) has highlighted the need for community
based partnership programs as a viable option to lower incarceration
and recidivism rates. In response to this need, the Los Angeles
Probation Commission, acting under the Board of Supervisors, is
affirmatively committed to implementing community-based measures that
focus on prevention and avert entrance into the juvenile justice system
rather than on punitive strategies. The purpose of the Juvenile Justice
Project (JJP) is to prevent entry into the juvenile justice system.
Utilizing the resources of UCLA Law School, the JJP will alleviate
demand for critical services and create diverse career options for UC-
LAW graduates.
The JJP will provide law students with critical practical
experience in an area of unprecedented need. Students will research the
juvenile justice system in order to examine pertinent civil rights
issues and to publish effective advocacy tools for parents of at-risk
youth. Students will also engage in educational advocacy for
disadvantaged, low-income, special needs children. The JJP will
culminate with student research presentations at forums such as the
UCLA Critical Race Symposium to promote cross-disciplinary community
dialogue about civil rights issues relevant to the delinquency system
and to train educational advocates.
The School to Prison Reversal Project
The School-to-Prison Pipeline Reversal Project (``Reversal
Project'') is a pilot project being launched at Barry J. Nidorf
Juvenile Hall and Sylmar Juvenile Court. The project aims to address
the staggering numbers of youth with undiagnosed or untreated mental
health concerns and/or learning disabilities entering the juvenile
justice system. The project utilizes a collaborative multi-disciplinary
approach, bringing together the expertise of Child and Family Guidance
Center, a well-established San Fernando Valley based mental health
provider, and LRLC to assess and identify the unique socio-emotional,
mental health and educational needs of San Fernando Valley youth
charged with ``low risk'' crimes.
Eligibility Criteria
The Reversal project is limited to youth residing in the San
Fernando Valley Area who are considered low risk offenders (i.e non
707(b) felony offenses), are currently not detained (i.e released on
Community Detention Program) and are at the pre-disposition stage of
the court process.
The Process and the Product
Once a youth is referred to the Reversal Project, either by
Probation, a juvenile judge, a local Community Based Organization (CBO)
or by a child's attorney, a Reversal Project representative will make
contact with the parent to determine whether he/she qualifies and is
interested in participating in the project. Once we have parental
consent, an Education Advocate will gather education records and
conduct a document review. Meanwhile, a therapist from Child and Family
Guidance Center will work with the youth and their family to conduct a
comprehensive mental health assessment. The information gathered from
the education review and the mental health assessment will be used to
create a Multi-Disciplinary Report and Recommendations (``Report'').
The Report will be prepared by LRLC Education Advocate Shantel
Vachani, JD/MSW, in collaboration with Child and Family Guidance
Center. The Report will be submitted to the court and copies will be
made available to all relevant parties prior to the adjudicatory
hearing. The information in the Report is meant to provide all relevant
parties with a more complete and holistic understanding of the youth's
needs, and in doing so, take the first step toward ensuring that these
needs are considered in the adjudication, disposition and post-
disposition process.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]